Discussion Topic

Synod has mandated a study on the area of homosexuality for its 2016 assembly. One of the resources that it has engaged is the material from New Directions Ministry of Canada with Wendy Gritter as its executive director. This blog asks the question if New Directions actually represents all...

October 24, 2015 0 0 comments
Resource, Report

The Board of Trustees of the Christian Reformed Church in North America met from Sept. 24 to 26, 2015 at Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Michigan.

October 5, 2015 0 0 comments

In response to the news that choosing by lot had been part of the selection process, someone commented that it was good to see us trusting the Spirit just a little. What do you think?

August 11, 2015 1 2 comments

Synod 2015 was an industrious synod. Now freed from the pure reporting mode, I share unsolicited insights eagerly anticipated by anyone desperate to read something...

June 19, 2015 0 2 comments

During Synod 2015, The Network is selecting a “Tweet of the Day” to be featured, as well as 2 honorable mentions! Could it be your tweet? 

June 18, 2015 1 0 comments

During Synod 2015, The Network is selecting a “Tweet of the Day” to be featured, as well as 2 honorable mentions! Could it be your tweet? 

June 17, 2015 0 0 comments

During Synod 2015, The Network is selecting a “Tweet of the Day” to be featured, as well as 2 honorable mentions! Could it be your tweet? 

June 16, 2015 0 0 comments

During Synod 2015, The Network will be selecting a “Tweet of the Day” to be featured, as well as 2 honorable mentions! Could it be your tweet? 

June 15, 2015 0 0 comments

During Synod 2015, The Network will be selecting a “Tweet of the Day” to be featured, as well as 2 honorable mentions! Could it be your tweet? 

June 12, 2015 0 0 comments

I sometimes found it intimidating to be a young adult at Synod. While I was very warmly welcomed by so many delegates, there were times I questioned whether I was even qualified to give an opinion...

June 12, 2015 0 0 comments

For the duration of Synod 2015, The Network will be selecting a “Tweet of the Day” to be featured on the blog! Could it be your tweet?

June 11, 2015 0 1 comments
Discussion Topic

In just a few short days, Synod 2015 will be underway on the campus of Dordt College in Sioux Center, IA! We'd love to know: what are you most excited about?  

June 8, 2015 0 0 comments
Resource, Article

If you're a deacon, elder, or pastor in the CRC, I encourage you to read the full report of the Task Force to Study the Offices of Elder and Deacon. Additionally, I've shared other resources to dig deeper!

June 5, 2015 0 0 comments
Resource, Devotional

You are invited to use Seeking God’s Face to pray for and along with the delegates by downloading a free synod sampler of this devotional book. 

June 5, 2015 2 0 comments

It is time to create a new agency to support ethnic CRCs. Just as children need new clothes as they outgrow the old ones, a relatively young denomination like the CRC needs new structures. 

June 3, 2015 2 1 comments

The choice, therefore, is whether at broader assemblies we have full representation of all the ordained or whether we continue the notion that deacons simply don't have the authority to "rule".

May 27, 2015 2 1 comments
Resource, Agenda

The Agenda for Synod 2015 Supplement has been posted on the Synod Resources and Synod 2015 web pages (www.crcna.org/Synod).

May 27, 2015 0 0 comments
Resource, Report

The Board of Trustees of the CRCNA met on May 7 and 8, 2015, at the Denominational Building in Grand Rapids, Mich.

May 22, 2015 0 0 comments
Resource, Report

On June 15, Faith Formation Ministries will present "The Chicago Covenant", created by 25 youth ministry leaders, to synod. We invite you to read this document and, if it speaks for you, to add your signature.

May 19, 2015 0 0 comments

My elders asked if there was anything in the church that needed improving. I replied, “We need better sermon readers when the minister is away.” Two weeks later, they asked if I would like to try it...

May 11, 2015 1 3 comments
Discussion Topic

Permit me to introduce the subject with three short stories:

An outreach training event was mobilized in a major US city and the speaker invited anyone with good ideas to present them to the audience. A man came forward and presented a reference book which he talked about as if he had just...
May 11, 2015 1 0 comments

I just attended an ecclesiastical meeting in the country where I am living and it was an enlightening experience to watch special interest groups play various cards from their deck of 21 cards. They used them skillfully in order to convince the attendees to support their motions. In a large...

May 8, 2015 0 0 comments

Delegates to Synod 2015 have the opportunity to model deep engagement and humble thoughtfulness through listening to one another. Leaders will gather not to vote or approve, but to discuss complex questions...

May 7, 2015 5 0 comments

Synod 2013 accepted a proposal from Classis Toronto to study the religious persecutions around the world with a view to devise effective ministries. What were some of the committee's considerations?

May 7, 2015 1 0 comments

Two articles published last year led some to wonder whether The Banner had changed its message along with its medium. Did it stumble in its practice and mandate?

May 6, 2015 0 1 comments



Thanks Norman for your article and Stanley for your comment.  I agree with your hesitancy to choose leaders of the church by lottery.  If you think it through, choosing leaders in such a way is really no different than playing the lottery.  You can say we are relying on the Holy Spirit to make the choice, but the reality is that we are bypassing making a reasonable thought out choice and leaving the choice to chance or luck (not the Holy Spirit).

As Bible believing Christians, we believe we have been created in the image of God.  One of the primary human characteristics is our ability use reason and to logically make choices.  Humans don’t rely simply on animal instinct.  This is likely the very reason that Christ emphasized that the law can be reduced to two principles, love for God and neighbor.  From those two principles we can reason or logically deduce the details of what is loving toward God and neighbor, without coming up with a long list of “do’s” and “don’ts,” as did the Pharisees.

It’s disappointing to think that our churches and denomination are moving increasingly in the (so called) leading of the Holy Spirit direction when the reality is that Christians are walking away from their unique God given ability to be reasonable and to use logic when making important choices in life.  The extreme logical outcome of such foolish thinking is to prayerfully play the lottery.  If I win big (unlikely), then I then I thank the Holy Spirit for his guidance; and if I loose all my wealth then I know the Holy Spirit wanted me to be poor.  After all, I did pray for the Holy Spirit’s guidance.

posted in: Trusting the Spirit

Thanks, Norman, for the good reminder. I've thought the same thing when selecting by lot is advocated on the grounds that it's more Spirit-directed. The Spirit works through our reflection and discernment, too!

posted in: Trusting the Spirit

If the 2015 Denominational structure overhaul is carried to it completion the input of Canadians will have effectively been reduced to 3 to 1! The position of Director of Canadian Ministries, always a position of questionable authority or input, will now be relegated to a token position. This despite assurances about the position last year. Based on the Ministry Report 2013 the CRCNA had some 12 ministries and their respective Directors excluding CC, BTGMI, WM, HM, WR.  In addition CRCNA has an ED, a Director of Ministries and Administration (the position that was at the root of the problems in 2013/14) and a Director of Canadian Ministries with a few Directors reporting to him. This is an organization tree with only crowns. 

Will the Home Missionaries and anyone not directly attached to a church be given the same challenges as Wold Missionaries and asked to raise 90% of their own funds for their salaries?

The three years it is estimated take to get the new structure running properly will cause the CRCNA to lose focus and turn in on itself. The Leadership will achieve even greater powers and  Classis' and Synods will become the rubber stamp. 

Oops, time to stop, the delegates to Synod have run for the exits, and leave the workers to clean up and run the show.

I wondered what role you may have at Synod this year.  I was desperate to read something of the happenings at Synod 2015, and found this article.  Looking forward to reading more...

I suspect the use of reading services is higher than the survey suggests.  Churches actively using reading services are often (usually?) without pastors and may be struggling to meet basic needs and therefore may miss or pass up requests to fill out surveys.  Our congregation has been very blessed by the reading sermon website and uses them at a greater frequency than new ones are posted (so we are going back into older posts).  We have appreciated the work of the committee and will miss its work.  Hopefully, we will be provided with direction on where to go to find sermon resources in the future.

Love this idea...let the competition begin! 

Thank you for sharing your perspectives and insights with us regarding the recommendations from the Task Force to Study the Offices of Elder and Deacon. I also appreciate that you took time to respond to Overture 12. I hope and pray that this year's delegates to Synod will take the time to carefully read the full report (pp. 380 - 401) in this year's Agenda. (The full agenda is available to download here.)

May the Lord continue to build diversity in his Church, including the CRC; and may we find the new clothes we need to support that work of the Spirit. Amen.


Ken -

I wonder if the decreased 'use' is also tied to a growing use of other resources ie. using retired pastors that are  in a local area or using other local resources ie. inviting a local ministry to come and speak on a given Sunday or even creating a prayer service or a hymn service.  No longer is there the strict dependence upon or adherence to having 'approved' resources read aloud.

I also recognize that the elders (and deacons) that I've spoken with over the past years have become increasingly uncomfortable and/or unwilling to speak from the front of the church.  Much less read a sermon !!

Thirdly - I wonder if the increased role of visuals ie. television, videos etc. have also created an appetite for  more 'entertaining' sermons rather than have one read from a member of the congregation.  I've spoken in our church about a back up plan for the emergency of a pastor not being able to attend on short notice and there was a unanimous reluctance to read a sermon and a preference to find a video sermon (acceptable of course to the leadership) that could be simply 'plugged in'.

Just wondering.

Allan Kirkpatrick - Grace CRC - Cobourg, Ontario, Canada

Most Baptist Churches don't have this problems because the NT states someplace that every Christian is supposed to be ready to to explain his faith. Every Elder is expected to be able to give an acceptable sermon. 


You are not alone! I too am worried about the "learned" folks the media trots out to tell me what I should believe. I am widely read and follow trends in two languages spread over two continents. Scripture in both languages is still my anchor.


The problem, it seems to me, isn't The Banner's mandate. It indeed should “stimulate critical thinking about issues related to the Christian faith and the culture of which we are a part.”

The problem arises when The Banner lives up to its mandate and actually publishes articles deemed to be controversial and designed to lead pew-sitting CRC folks to do some serious thinking. Those types are articles are the exception; not the norm.

As an avid and long-time Banner reader, I have grown accustomed to the USA Today style: church snippets and pictures of winning sports teams at local Christian schools. The Banner by its very design and content treats its readers as theological and ecclesiastical neophytes. The very fact that the editorial staff consistently needs to define what a synod or a classis are, reinforces that notion. I can't imagine any sports magazine worth its salt painstakingly explaining what a touchdown is, or a quarterback, hat trick or hole in one.

The Banner is mandated to stimulate critical thinking. Give us something to chew on. Challenge our long-held beliefs. But also give us some very basic information about our denomination. I, and probably thousands of others, bemoan the fact that our denominational publication no longer publishes information on ministers in transition from one church to another.

The blame for the apparent outrage over the publication of those two notorious articles falls squarely on the minds of ordinary Christian Reformed folk who have been spoon-fed light articles of church news for so long that they can't recognize a good potential debate when they see one. We can't handle controversy. We don't know what critical thinking really is.

We don't need a denominational publication to give us warm fuzzies about the state of our church. We need to be challenged to become more culturally relevant as a denomination. We need to look at the tension within the denomination between piety and Kuyperianism, the theology of our church plants, how we engage in mission, the demise (or is it a celebration?) of the second service.

I don't envy the new Banner editor. While he or she will be mandated to 'stimulate critical thinking about issues related to the Christian faith', the truth of the matter is that we who sit in the pew aren't prepared to hear it or to engage in it. The new editor will need to develop thick skin -- even thicker than Bob DeMoor's -- who will need to be backed by a strong board and a stronger synod.

The Banner is the only place where grassroots Reformed people (I hate that term) can wrestle with pertinent issues of the day as they relate to the church and our own spiritual journeys. Our pastors and elders have the annual gathering of synod where they can engage in that kind of discussion. We have and need The Banner.

We will hopefully experience a transition in the kinds of articles that will appear in future Banners. Here's the point: The Banner's editorial staff needs to expect more from its readers. They need to trust that CR folks can engage in a meaningful and thoughtful discussion on matters of faith. The Banner needs to push and prod and lead the CR constituency down a path of critical thinking.

We, the audience, need to open our minds and hearts as we hear our own preconceived notions challenged in our beloved denominational publication. After all, The Banner is mandated to engage us in that kind of critical thinking.


What 'science' is Walhout referring to? There are many credible, PhD credentialed researchers and scientists who will give excellent proofs for a young earth explanation of the universe: and explain how light which is stretched out with the heavens now reflects an old universe, while earth which was created in a gravity well does not have such age; and population models based on Noah and his family entering the Ark about 2348 BC do indeed work out. The population models for 8 adults from that time to the present account for the current world population. Simply put, who or what will one trust? Will a person trust the Word of God first and evaluate all discoveries and worldviews through its lens or will a person press the Word of God through the sieve of ever changing secular science? Walhout seeks to make peace with the world at all costs. The Word of God calls us to faith which interprets our world according to God's revelation. All disciplines are to be subservient to the Word of God. It is a pity that Walhout and many others who claim 'science' disproves the Bible refuse to examine the work being carried out by Young Earth Creationist Scientists. All through my schooling I have been required to read about evolution, Big Bang theories, an ever changing idea of how old the earth must be. It is refreshing to read Young Earth Creation Scientists who propose what the Bible teaches does in fact fit with scientific observation. Such a position as I hold, creation some 6,000 years ago, does fit well with the Word, our creeds and confessions and does mean I get ridiculed by many peers and colleagues in our denomination. No matter. I'd rather seek peace with God and His Word than hold to a false peace with the world. I am appealing for Christians to get more widely read. To read the work of scientists who are Young Earth Creationists and then evaluate their work against the work of others. See how we can truly test the spirits of this age. Shalom.


The fact that the world is coming to North America does not for that reason warrant joining World and Home Missions. I suggest keeping the mission separate so we can focus on the need of new comers (immigrants, refugees etc.). The focus on new comers needs to be organized by local congregations and supported by a Home Missions organization that understands all the legal nuances of new arrivals. Just look at what is happening in Europe with the surge in "boat people". That does not require a foreign missions approach but a whole new way of integrating people in their new country.

That also has nothing to do with sending missionaries and working with Christian partners overseas. The skill sets and needs are totally different. One benefit I can see, in the long haul, is that the pool of potential missionaries TO foreign countries will expand significantly.

I come from an immigrant background (in fact I came twice to Canada, once as a child and immigrated on my own as an adult). We needed a community to join, support of those who could teach us English and assistance to adapt to the new land. Nothing has changed except that it is much more difficult to integrate the much greater diversity.

I respectfully disagree with Dr. Timmermans that the integration of WM and HM is needed. The sheer size of the joint organization would make it unresponsive to the local congregations in North America and would lose total touch with our missionaries and partners overseas.

Our product (mission) is spreading the Gospel. The means to do that locally and internationally need to be organized separately.

posted in: Mind the Gap

 I understand the theology and practicality of being a good neighbor. I understand the dispensational/semi-Pelagian theology of missions but disagree with it. I do not understand the Reformed theology of missions. I have no problem with the doctrine of election as long as it not used to define a sub-set of the general population that God can not regenerate.

posted in: Mind the Gap

John Carver is the creator of the Policy Governance model. See http://www.carvergovernance.com/model.htm. This model is used worldwide by the boards of many non-profit organizations, including many Christian organizations. I have firsthand experience with two boards of organizations in the Reformed tradition that use the Carver model. I recommend the book Good Governance for Nonprofits: Developing Principles and Policies for an Effective Board by Frederic Laughlin and Robert Andringa for practical advice about implementing the Carver model. I know that at least Robert is a Christian.

I can not follow the Carver comments. Where does that come from?

Joel, your initial reaction to rule yourself out as a writer of this objective look may been  the right one. The very fact that it took 4 years to get to this final report from your committee puts truth to the statement "The Task Force heard repeatedly that the current system includes far too many “hoops” and is needlessly complex". The report that I read in the Agenda does nothing to change that statement.

Let me summarize what I read.

First, a few positives. The affirmation of the local congregation was very good to read. Leaving Calvin Seminary and World Renew Boards in place was an excellent recommendation.

Second, a glaring omission. The vision statement of the CRCNA should have been placed at the heading of this report. It was not, so the reader has no idea from what baseline you were working. It follows here so that my comments (following) are seen in the correct light.

“The Christian Reformed Church is a diverse family of healthy congregations, assemblies, and ministries expressing the good news of God’s kingdom that transforms lives and communities worldwide.”

Third, some negatives and supporting comments. The Agenda Report with its 18 circles (page 358) and 21 ovals (page 359) was a rainbow of complexity. Congregational Health was shown as part of one circle but I could not find it in any of the ovals. With 30% of congregations under 100 members the church is far from getting close to its mission statement.  Ministry share requests were about $375 per confessing member in 2014. The church only collected $140 per member. (I used 2013 yearbook professing members). This implies churches paid less than 40% of Ministry shares. Let’s define “health” of a local congregation!

The report in Point 2 of the TFRSC report has the priorities in the wrong order. Gospel Proclamation is shown in the circles (page 358) but it is only one of 11 other areas of focus.

At the heart of the circles is of course the bureaucracy of the CRCNA.  It is this group that has come up with the idea of Global Missions. Our congregations need support as its health is fragile in many parts. Mixing Home missions with World Missions will cause the CRCNA to lose much of its know how on the international level and water down its expertise.

A sixty member COD is an impossible number to work with. The largest companies of the world do have a governance assembly that big. The Executive Committee will have unprecedented powers.

A final comment, the CRCNA has to divest itself of Calvin College. If we could somehow monetize that asset the church would have a great reserve for fixing the health of local congregations. If the church going to go for a wholesale organization let’s take a long term view. Synod should not jump to conclusion and not encourage moving forward but stepping back and see how we need to realize our vision of healthy congregations.

This man named Carver, is he a new Reformed church order guru or did we just find him in a business model and decided that since it works in business it will probably work in the church?



You're right, Terry. Thanks for pointing that out. It was a slip of the pen and we've fixed it in the original post.


I don't understand the following statement:

This also will fit much better with the current Board of Trustees’ decision to move toward the Carver model of governance and concentrate on policy while the administration engages in governance.

In the model that you reference, policy and governance are not two distinct modes of operation. The BoT would govern via policy; staff, through the leadership of the Executive Director (administration), would operate the denomination in accordance with those policies set by the Board. I'm not sure that I understand the distinction you were trying to make. Did you mean "implementation" or "execution" rather than "governance" as the role of the administration?

The question is how to get deacons involved in Classis and Synod? Would a stipend for those losing wages be an effective measure? Some Classes have stipends for elders to attend Synod. Perhaps that is a route to explore...

Thanks, Terry for your remarks. I wonder what the participation rate of deacons is at Classis Atlantic Northeast? I left CANE in 2008 and at the time, deacons delegated to Classis was relatively new, but participation/attendance at Classis was not a very high percentage. Has that changed considerably over time? I believe Classes that allow women deacons will likely have a higher percentage of attendance than Classes that have not yet approved that measure.


Who cares if the deacon can or cant speak at Classis, or synod, or who has what role if the work of the church of either office is not being done effectively.  We have much to say and are amazingly articulate in our own assemblies but are mute in practical matters in our congregations and especially in our communities.  We have the cart before the horse.  Let's go for what's working and rewrite our playbook.  

Hi James,

I really appreciate these posts and the questions. They are good questions to ask. Three years after the document you referenced here I know that some movement has been made towards creation care in our denomination especially at the denominational offices in Grand Rapids. I'd love to hear about how churches are engaging with creation care across the continent. Did synod just ratify a document that now sits on a shelf? Creation care starts at the grass roots. True creation care is the day to day, boring, non-newsworthy living of the members of the congregation...I wonder if there's a way of finding out if the document brought a shift or is just collecting dust. 

I have to admit I like free things. But I also agree that it is a bit silly the "stuff" that gets sent/given away in the name of "promotion". I do have to say that I love the paper pens that Canadian Food Grains Bank and the paper covered USB sticks that Blessed Earth gave out a few years back. Useful and more sustainable materials. Something to think about.

PS I really appreciate your column and questions. Thank you.

Cindy Verbeek

I think that looked at from a historical perspective, the office of deacon is incredibly flexible and has manifested itself in many different forms.  Your note about nominating people according to skill sets brings up an interesting historical note, Harry.  In Geneva the deacons were divided up into procurators, what we would call administrative deacons, and hospitalars, who had the care of the poor and sometimes lived among them.  Calvin defended this distinction exegetically.  Maybe in our new setup it will make sense to make use of it again.  


Thanks for "jumping in" to share your perspectives and thoughts as someone who has been intimately involved in this process for several years now. I am grateful for interest and responses that Norman's post has generated thus far. I encourage those who are following this conversation to share their thoughts on the post itself or in response to any of the comments made thus far. 

I appreciate Norman and Terry's comments. The church made an interesting change when it broadened the skill sets for the ED of the Denomination. Now when you look at the skill sets of those who are nominated to the BOT and the Boards of the various ministries, the "quota's"  for Ministers and Lay people come into play.The "Lay" people for that do not have to be Elders or Deacons but certainly can be. Looking at skill sets has became a factor on one of the Boards I served on and that is good.

If that review of skill sets could be applied to those selected to go to Synod, the distinction between Elders and Deacons could largely fall away. Now of course you need a skill set evaluation at the congregational level if you want to be consistent. But here is where the problem comes in. Pastors on the payroll can always (I hope) get time off for Synod/ Classis. But for lay people this is more problematic. Not only they have to devote time to local work in the role of Elder or Deacon but they can also be delegated to Classis and Synod.

Despite all of the new technology, and how it was supposed to help us, it has probably done the opposite. It is harder than ever to "get away" from the job. In our church polity we have to rely on the wisdom of church Councils and Classis to select the most capable (and I hope with appropriate skill sets) people as delegates to the Ministry Boards and to Synod.

I will make (repeat) another bold suggestion. Could the church not take Calvin College out of its governance structure and also find a totally new way to govern World Renew (e.g. give that role to the Deacons)?

I'll try to address your various points from my perspective as a deacon, a deacon who recently attended a classis meeting (and spoke at the meeting), and a member of both task forces that wrote the subject reports.

Your opening and concluding observation about not being sure about ever hearing a deacon speak at classis might be more indicative of the agenda and culture atmosphere of what classis meetings are like to deacons. Have the deacons been encouraged and mentored by pastors and elders to actively participate in the meetings and committees? Are the topics and discussions relevant to deacons? Do the deacons have a voice in shaping the meeting agenda? In my experience, certain pastors/elders may dominate the discussions. At the last meeting of Classis Atlantic Northeast, the delegates broke into small groups of four to pray for one another and also discuss a topic. Deacons participated equally with the elders and pastors in these small groups. This is one small example of how deacons can be encouraged to have a voice at a classis meeting. I've been told that almost every deacon from one of the churches who has attended a classis meeting in recent years has returned with renewed energy and excitement about ministry.

A couple points regarding the church order changes:

  1. The proposed changes are the result of four years of work over two task forces. The churches have had ample opportunity to comment on the changes and suggest revisions. (One specific revision suggested via overture in 2013 has been incorporated into the 2015 report.) I am sure that future synods will have additional changes based on experience working with these proposed changes.
  2. I hope that at this synod an advisory committee is assigned the sole task of working on this report. The advisory committee in 2013 was assigned additional work that didn't allow it to fully focus on the report it was given.
  3. Changes viewed individually rather than in the context of all the other changes may be questioned, but we looked at every church order article with a big picture view of the offices to ensure that the articles communicated the vision of the offices of elder and deacon that we, and hopefully the church, wants to see.
  4. We have no expectation that these church order changes, in themselves, will be the primary means of revitalization of the offices of deacon and elder. That's why there are other recommendations in the report that are just as important as the church order changes. In my opinion, this report should be viewed as the beginning of a journey of revitalization and not the final word on what needs to be done.

Finally, addressing your concern about imposing a model on the entire denomination, well, isn't that what being a denomination with a church order is all about? Isn't requiring elders and pastors to be delegated to classis meetings already an imposed model? I encourage classes to be creative and share their experiences with incorporating deacons into the structure of classis.

If, as some suggest, the roles and responsibilities of the offices reflect or are intended to reflect and perform the functions of Christ as prophet (pastor), priest (deacon) and king (elder), what does it say about our denomination's view of the role and responsibilities of the deacon (priest) when we don't include them and give them a voice and vote at synod?


Norman, I full support the full inclusion of deacons at all assemblies.  We work together in God's kingdom and we need to share information, encourage one another, and partner together.  So, we need every opportunity to be in the same room together.  I understand your uncertainty, and we'll have a big learning curve.  I'm hoping that the changes we have to go through will leave lots of room for evaluation and flexibility so we can make accommodations.

Norman, I did find your reference to deacons not participating at classis meetings quite disturbing, and I shared that with you privately.  No elder, minister or deacon can be evaluated by the number of words that are being said at a classis meeting.  I might even suggest to you that some people (ministers in particular) probably say too many words at Classis and do not add a whole lot of value to the meeting.

I have been very blessed being in the presence of all God's servants.

Diane Plug

John Klein-Geltink, a deacon from Classis Chatham, emailed his response to this post and asked me to share it here--for some reason he was unable to post it directly.

Hello Jack
When I read the report I was rather put off as are other deacons.For the past 13 years a number of deacons of Classis Chatham have served on the Classis Chatham Ministry Committee and attended Classis meetings and voted on all matters. We even asked to set time at classis to have churches share Diaconial ministry at local communities,which did happen at our last May meeting.Deacons also designed questions to be discussed at Church visits about the nature of diaconial work in their commuttees.So I am not sure what Norman is talking about.

To those who might have missed it, there is a post on The Network's site for Deacons entitled, "What's Up With Deacons Going To Synod?." The post itself is a letter written to CRC Deacons by The Task Force to Study the Offices of Elder and Deacon. Given the interest sparked by this particular post, I think anyone wanting to better understand this issue might find it helpful. You can get directly to the post by going here. You might also be interested in reading a letter written in 1939 by a deacon that addresses the matter of deacon inclusion/representation also posted on the page for deacons here.



I think you--and others--might appreciate and benefit by reading a letter written in 1939 by deacon Hendrik Schoonekamp about the need for and importance of deacon inclusion and representation. You can read it on The Network's page for Deacons here.

While I support the idea of including deacons at Classis meetings, I wonder about the participation. It is hard to find deacons that are able/willing to take a day off of work for a Classis meeting. I often wonder about the possibility of deacons having their own meetings and reporting to Classis. A number of years ago I was in another Classis that made the change to include deacons. The attendance of deacons was minimal at best. We need full participation of deacons to make it work well.

True, deacons have their hands full at the local church level.  This has sometimes been used as an argument for not delegating them to the broader assemblies.

But couldn't the same thing be said of pastors?  Of elders?  Yet there is no talk of them staying home.

Ultimately, doesn't it all go back to fully reflecting the work of the risen and ruling Christ, though the offices, at all levels of assembly and decision making?  It will be interesting to see what might take place when this becomes a reality.



Here is the summary of the Synod's Agenda. Look how neatly all the ministries of the CRC HO Departments & Ministries have been pigeonholed into the five streams. The CRC Extension Fund in Canada, which is 3 times large than the US (Loan Fund) one, is not even mentioned anywhere.

Faith Formation
Calvin College
Discipleship and Faith Formation Ministries
Servant Leadership
Chaplaincy and Care Ministry
Christian Reformed Church Loan Fund, Inc., U.S.
Pastor-Church Relations 
Pensions and Insurance
Safe Church Ministry
Global Missions
Christian Reformed Home Missions
Christian Reformed World Missions
Loving Mercy and Doing Justice
Committee for Contact with the Government
Disability Concerns
Race Relations
Social Justice and Hunger Action
Urban Aboriginal Ministries
World Renew
Gospel Proclamation and Worship
Back to God Ministries International
Calvin Theological Seminary 
Worship Ministries

The order is very telling. Gospel proclamation is last. With a 557 page Agenda it will be an interesting Synod. Why Deacons would even want to participate is a question for me. They have their hands full at the local church level.

I for one am excited to see what the changes might bring. I have been at classis meetings where elders barely spoke a word. According to this line of reasoning, perhaps we shouldn't delegate them to classis, either.

Thank you for your thoughtful comments for us to consider as we look ahead to Synod 2015. I share your concern about the possibility--perhaps even likelihood--that the delegates to Synod 2015 could get "bogged down" with all the recommended changes to the articles of church order. You raise some important questions and I would like to hear what others are thinking about it as well.

Not yet, but he anticipates being ordained as a commissioned pastor. The exception would enable him to serve in that role in multiple classes, instead of only in the classis in which he has been ordained.

I do not understand the wordig in number 4,  Has Dr. Timmermans been ordained?

I'm sorry, Edwin, but to me it seems like you are only listening to about half or less of what is being discussed.  I asked for examples of what science has discovered that indicates this "development" that you keep mentioning, but have not yet seen anyone provide examples.  To what data are you referring?  Part of what I have been mentioning is that the way data is interpreted by evolutionists may not be correct, so if it is not correct in interpretation, then even though it is part of God's revelation in nature, we cannot with certainty understand development the way that evolutionists understand development.  Furthermore, there is an element of social regression in evolutionary faith, as I illustrated in my last post above.

Who is honest about the data of modern science?  If we see DNA degradation in nature, if we see the mutation rates increasing cumulatively to the point that in a certain number of centuries it will no longer be possible for human beings to survive under the deleterious mutations, due to all the genetic defects,  then would you still see progress or development?  There is no observable evidence that one species or kind has evolved into another, no matter how many speculations have abounded.  So what evidence do we have for this evolutionary development?

Scripture indicates that when God created things, it was good.  It was later, through man's disobedience that things were not so good anymore.  This to me seems somewhat anti-evolutionary.   So whether you treat Genesis as symbolic or not, this is the message.  And this is also what we see in creation itself, even though man works more and more to design and develop things which cope with or counteract the degradation we see in nature itself.   God does institute a process of change in our relationship to him, yes.  But this is the exact opposite of evolution.  It is a dramatic, "catastrophic" event of being born again like the apostle Paul, or the repentance of the apostle Peter, or the struggle of the Reformation.   It is the acknowledgement of God in the constitutions of the new nations of  USA and Canada.  But it is subject again to the obedience or disobedience of the people of earth.  And it is counter to the philosophy of evolution.

At the time of Noah, people were so disobedient that God sent a flood to destroy them.  You would think after that, that no one would disobey God, that all would fervently worship and be grateful.  But not long after, man worshipped himself again, and many worshipped other Gods.  Even though Christianity has spread and grown in the world today, how many north americans have abandoned faith and obedience?  How does it compare to how non-christians have spread and grown in the world today?  Is Islam part of the "development" of which you speak?  How do you reference these things in your ideology of "development"?

When you say there can hardly be any valid objection to recognizing... you are begging the question.  In fact, there are many valid objections, both to the interpretation of scientific data, and to the philosophical underpinnings for evolution and/or "development".  If you say there cannot be objections, when there are objections, then the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate that the objections are not valid, and the burden of proof is on you to demonstrate the biological and evolutionary development.  It does not help anyone simply to restate your position.

I had thought we were done, Edwin.  And we are done.  Unless we can leave the unproven generalities and get to specifics, it is no use pursuing an esoteric argument on vague philosophical generalities.


John, You keep writing about things that can’t happen; but what about the things that have happened?  What do you do with the items that science has discovered?

I think it makes a vast difference what framework of thought a person uses.  The objections you keep raising, perhaps correctly, all seem to be related to the attempt to explain things in terms of what is called The Enlightenment, the modern philosophical movement defined best by Immanuel Kant, in which the term God means simply a noumenal unknowable being.

But if we try honestly to put all the data of modern science into a truly Biblical and Christian framework of thought, then there can hardly be any valid objection to recognizing that there has been, and continues to be, a developmental process in the universe, a process we recognize as being in every instance the voice of God calling the universe into being.

Edwin Walhout


I promised to add a last post about the last chapter in "Evolution's Achilles Heels", Edited by Robert Carter, PhD, and published by Creation Book Publishers, of Powder Springs, Georgia, USA.  The first seven chapters emphasize what they call fatal arrows in the achilles heel of the evolution theory.  This last chapter deals with human response in the context of this theory, in terms of ethics and morality.  So, some quotes below.

William Provine said, " ... my views on modern evolutionary biology ... tells us loud and clear, there are no gods, no purposes, no goal-directed forces of any kind.  No life after death... no foundation for ethics, no ultimate meaning for life, and no free will for humans, either."

Richard Dawkins:  "I am a passionate Darwinian when it comes to science, when it comes to explaining the world, but I'm a passionate anti-Darwinian when it comes to morality and politics."

"If evolution is true, reasoning is just an epiphenomenon of the brain and the results of the laws of chemistry and random processes."

CS Lewis:  If evolution is true and accidental,   "... then all our thought processes are mere accidents - the accidental by product of the movement of atoms. ... why should we believe them to be true?"

Dr. Susan Blackmore:  "In the end nothing matters.  If you really think about evolution and why we human beings are here, you have to come to the conclusion that we are here for absolutely no reason at all."

Jeffrey Dahmer:  "I always believed the theory of evolution as truth, that we all just came from the slime."

Matthew Piercy:  "Evolution reduces humans to the level of animals, making it just as acceptable to put down a human as put down a dog."

Darwin:  "At some future period...the civilized races will almost certainly exterminate and replace, the savage races through the world."

In both world war 1 and 2, Germans (and others) espoused various types of eugenics.  A Nazi propoganda film of 1937:  "In the last few decades, mankind has sinned frightfully aganist the law of natural selection.  We haven't just maintained life unworthy of life, we have even allowed it to multiply!"

Stalin read Darwin's "Origin of Species" when he was thirteen.  This book convinced him that God did not exist.

Mao Zedung's two favorite books were by Darwin and Huxley.

The columbine killers were wearing teashirts with "natural selection" printed on the front.

The Finland killer of seven students and teacher  had revealed before his crime that "life is just a coincidence... result of long process of evolution and many several factors...  ...It is time to put natural selection and survival of the fittest back on track. ...I have evolved higher."

So are all these quotes just accidental random events that mean nothing?  or do they indicate something real and true?



John, You seem to get sidetracked on scientific matters with Roger when the subject I raised is theological. By the way I’m with Roger all the way on that issue. I don’t think you could persuade the younger generation of people that the earth is only 6000 + years old, any more than you could persuade them that the sun revolves around the earth.
So I’d like to respond to something you raised theologically a while back, namely the question of sin. You explained in some detail how your mind would work if you accepted an evolutionary setting and tried to understand sin in that context. I respect the way your mind works but mine doesn’t work exactly that way.
What is sin if we no longer define it in the context of an historical Eden and the traditional theology of a literal fall into sin from a state of perfection? A very valid and critical question. It does not mean a denial of sin as your scenario sort of suggests. A denial of our traditional doctrine of sin, yes, but in no way a denial of the reality of sin.
Consider how the author of Genesis explains that way back in the origins of human history people became so bad that every imagination of the thoughts of their hearts was only evil continually. Then consider what our historians tell us about the ancient civilizations that they have studied: they are all based on violence, slavery, greed, self-centeredness, exploiting some people for the advantage of others, etc., evil of all kinds. Even such advanced cultures as those of Greece and Rome. The phrase, “man’s inhumanity to man,” says it well. That is sin. It’s not the way God wants us to live. So the reality is there, is it not? Even when we do not connect it all to a historical fall in the Garden of Eden. So sin is not merely how bad we treat each other but at the same time it is a missing of the mark with regard to how God created us to live. God created us to live as his image while we go about constructing our civilizations, but we aren’t doing it. That failure defines sin, not a mistake on the part of a first pair of humans.
So Christianity and all it involves is the way God is providing the necessary remedy, the internal power of the Spirit of Holiness, to enable us to work successfully at becoming the kind of humans we are created to be. The overall process of history, accordingly, is the process whereby God is teaching us how to be images of God. History is the process of our learning how to be human, not guilty of “inhumanity to man.” Obviously we have a long way to go yet, but let’s not ignore the real progress that the gospel has made in this regard since the time of Jesus.
Edwin Walhout


Roger, I appreciate your interest and involvement. It gave me an excuse to gather my thoughts, and additional incentive to read and understand the book I am reading, and now almost completed.  I agree it can be wearying, even while challenging to engage on this topic.

I do not put much stock in my own speculations.... I only put it forward to demonstrate what it means to take scripture at face value, while still considering scientific observations.  I think it is entirely possible that God created the visibility of light at great distance from the source, at the same time as the source was created.  I think the appearance of time when it comes to starlight is also just as legitimate as my previous speculation.  But I don't think it impacts who God is the way the theory of evolution impacts the character of God.

Your comment on secondary causation ... is too much being made of it?  I don't know, but when people suppose that Jesus didn't do miracles, or that Elijah and Peter did not raise someone from the dead, they do that because they don't believe God has the power to create miracles (going outside natural laws).  Evolutionary theory exhibits the same unbelief.

Ironically, it would take a real miracle for evolution to happen.

Like you, I think enough has been said.   I may add one comment later when I have read the last chapter of the book, which is on the relationship of human nature to the theory of evolution.  But that's it.. 

Thanks for being considerate and charitable in your comments, Roger.  All the best.


I don’t know John.  Going back and forth with you makes me a little weary.  Maybe it does for you, as well.  I think that may be why Edwin dropped out a long time back.

As to your last response, you did a lot of speculation as to a naturalistic explanation of the first four days of the creation narrative in Genesis.  You want to be true to the intent of Scripture and yet true to science (general revelation).  Sounds admirable.  And even though you admitted that what you stated could be totally out, you probably put more stock in such speculations you have made up than in evolutionary theory which has a lot of research behind it.  It sounds a little bit to me, that for you, speculation is ok as long as it doesn’t agree with evolutionary theory.

Here’s another take (my speculation).  I think there’s a possibility that as to primary causation Genesis is saying that God is the creator God.  He stands above it all.  That’s the important message for the ages.  As to secondary causation a face on reading of Genesis made sense to the people of Moses’ day.  That’s as far as their science would let them go in that early stage of history.  And a day was a day, as Moses would have understood it. Today, as to primary causation, the message is the same.  But today with the advances of science, people are still trying to make sense of origins as to secondary causation.  And maybe on both sides of the issue there is both speculation as well as research.  This includes Christians on both sides of the evolution/creation issue.  Maybe too much is being made of secondary causation when reading the Bible.

I know, for you, an actual Adam, seems very important.  Without him a lot of theology seems like it can thrown out or watered down.  It sounded to me, as though Edwin was trying to come up with a way to be true to natural science and to the Biblical account.  I know you disagree, and I understand.  A lot could be at stake.

For me, I’m a theist.  That means, in one way or another, God is involved.  I’m not near ready to dismiss him.  I’m not sure I want to keep this up endlessly.  Honestly, I thought you would wear down before me.  But looking over these responses, as well as others (to other articles) I think you are the energizer bunny.  It’s been fun.  And thanks for the food for thought.  It’s been good.


What I mean by faith in evolution, Roger, is that people believe in it whether they understand it or not, and whether they can prove it scientifically or not.  Whether evolutionists are atheists or not, they generally examine and assume evolution from the perspective that God does not influence it.  Evolution is primarily history, paleo and geological history.  Evolutionists will say that God has no direct involvement;  this is an atheistic position, even if the evolutionists themselves are deists.  It's like saying that everything that happened to King David, or Pharaoh, or Jesus, was just an accident of history.  That God had no purpose in it.  That God also does not do miracles, nor does his spirit influence anyone.  It's that type of atheistic mindset that says that there really was no flood caused by God, and that destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah was no act of God.  

I am somewhat willing to stretch the length of days before the sun and moon became visible on Day 4, because of the possibility that it does not violate scripture itself.  If a day was really long (measured in hours or by an atomic clock) because the earth was not spinning, or for some other reason, it would still be a day by an evening and morning.  Think of a space ship beyond earth's horizon, which does not experience a morning and evening.  But that is different to me than saying that millions of days or years happened during that period.  I am willing to stretch the length of days if the evidence requires it, which it may not do when we fully understand what the physics is telling us.  But extending the length or number of days after  animals and fish and birds and man were created seems to me to violate the principle of the good creation in scripture and negate the entire point of the genesis story. 

Speculating on the first few days of creation in the genesis account, we see that the earth was there, but had no viable form, and was dark.  Then light was created, which we could say perhaps was the source of stars of the universe, and a source of day and night for the earth.  The earth then became divided into waters above and waters below, the appearance of an atmosphere.  Still no land.  The third day, dry ground appeared, a very dramatic physical thing.  Presumably mountains, valleys, seas, oceans.  A major shift of elements and rocks.  Before this, just water.  After this, land.  Was this associated with a difference in the properties of the earth such as its rotation, polar angles, etc.?   The same day, we get seeds and plants and trees, presumably at the end of this day.  The fourth day, separate lights, the lights that we identify today with day and night, ie. sun and moon and stars.  We had light before, but now the lights are separated into distinct bodies such as sun and stars, and reflected on the moon and other planets.  This is speculation, and could be totally out, or partially out as far as trying to find a naturalistic explanation.  Whether God sent another planet or star to collide and cause the earth to begin its rotation and orbit, or whether He simply touched the earth with his finger to make it spin... well, we don't know. 

But we do know that seeds and plants needed to be directly created, because they could not create themselves.  Science tells us they cannot create themselves. We know that fish and birds and reptiles and other animals needed to be created, because they could not and cannot create themselves, not even by accident.  There is no reasonable naturalistic explanation for how they came about.  Once they came about, they seem to be able to change a bit, but not in a grand evolutionary sense.  And scripture is pretty clear that God created man from the dust of the earth, not from some animal.  God used some of the same principles for creating man, that he used for creating mammals.  He used nervous systems, blood, endoskeleton, dna, and bimodal principles.  But again, similarity of design does not mean similarity or inheritance of origin. 

Jonathan Sarfati wrote a book called, "Refuting Compromise" which you might want to read if you are really interested in pursuing this idea of theistic evolution.  It will probably clarify the difficulties. 


I suppose you are right John, to some extent, when you say that both evolutionism and creationism involve faith.  But that doesn’t mean that belief in evolution necessitates whether a person believes in God or not.  Belief in Biblical creation does necessitate such belief.  In fact, that is the beginning presupposition.  A scientist should (and most do) do his evolutionary studies apart from any opinion about God.  The evolutionist is simply looking for a natural explanation for the development of life.  He looks at the facts or his findings and based on those findings comes up wth a theory of what those findings demonstrate.  It’s when you add a philosophy (cosmology) to your findings that you come up with an “ism.”  Hence evolutionism.  But then this is a mixing of science and cosmology, and not true science.  Creationism necessitates a cosmology, in fact begins with it.  So, you see, the faith element is entirely different for the person who believes that evolution explains the origins of life.  He may or may not believe in God.

Of course creationism or belief in a Biblical creation, begins with the presupposition that God has done this (brought into existence the world and all of life), in fact, has done this according to the outline laid out in Genesis 1 and 2.  You, John, because you have some sympathy for the findings of evolution (dating and age findings) are now willing to stretch the Genesis account to include something never intended by the author of the Genesis account.  I’m sure Moses was not thinking of days in terms of years or even millions of years for part of creation and twenty-four hours days for the rest.  That takes away from the plain sense of reading the text.  If God could create the animal kingdom in a matter of a few actual days he could do the same with the rest of creation.  That’s the point of the Genesis account, not to differentiate the length of days in the account.  That’s where the young earth creationists are attempting to be true to the text of Genesis.  But they are beginning with big presuppositions which shades their whole scientific endeavor.

You have pointed out previously that buying into the theory of evolution necessitates an atheistic cosmology. Even the evolutionary scientists have claimed that.  But certainly not all, or even a majority, have made that claim. And it’s not the begriming premise.   And for those scientists that do claim evolution necessitates an atheistic perspective, they don’t really understand what God can and can’t do.  Randomness does not exclude God from the process or development of life over time to its present forms.  In fact Reformed Christians would say God works in and through what appears to be random or coincidence.  In fact nothing happens by chance, even the falling of a single hair to the ground (again, or is it a bird).  Isn’t that the point of Peter’s address to the Jews who had crucified Jesus but God was at work, despite their ill attempts, to accomplish the salvation of many.  Isn’t that Paul’s meaning, when he says that everything happens by the hand of God, or when he talks about the Pharoah being a pot made for the seemingly ill purpose that God intended.  Isn’t this what Christians have in mind when they talk about looking at a quilt from the back side and it looks ugly, but when seen from God’s perspective is beautiful (like seeing it from the front)?  Atheistic evolutionism (evolution + cosmology) has a narrow understanding of what God can and can’t do, or what might make sense in the mind of God.


"The Banner is the official magazine of the Christian Reformed Church in North America"  This is a quote repeated over and over again, when you do a google search for the crc banner.   When we say that it is not the official voice, who are we trying to fool?  Ourselves?  



this section to get email notifications of new posts
Rebekah VandenAkker
Jack Kooyman
Keith Knight