What is an “Ecumenical Faith Declaration”? What does it mean that we have accepted the Belhar Confession in this category?  Did we just leave Synod 2012 sorely confused, not sure what just happened but guessing that it probably wasn’t good? 

June 11, 2013 0 4 comments

The prophet Micah says, “To love mercy, to do justice and to walk humbly with our God.” The CRCNA says...

June 11, 2013 0 0 comments
Discussion Topic

The schedule for Synod 2013 tells us that the Diakonia Remixed report will be discussed on Wednesday evening.  Synod will be discussing, among other things, the role of deacons in the broader assemblies of the church.  This is one live webcast I'm going to pop the popcorn for, because it will...

June 10, 2013 0 8 comments

It is all well and good to say that we want to keep the main thing the main thing.  Problem is, we can’t decide on the main thing.

June 10, 2013 0 4 comments

Two overtures are coming to Synod next week regarding the current pension system of the denomination.

June 6, 2013 0 8 comments

I have this sense that among young leaders there is a growing attitude rejecting traditional forms of church governance. A lot of us have a hard time with the idea that the decisions made by this binational gathering will have any helpful impact on the day to day work of the Kingdom of God. At the same time, some of these young leaders have started a hashtag #crcgroundswell looking for stories of God’s Holy Spirit at work in our churches...

June 6, 2013 0 3 comments

The Faith Formation Study Committee has been working steadily for the past four years. What could have been a contentious issue (adapting the practice of profession of faith and allowing “age and ability appropriate faith in Jesus Christ” to be the marker of admittance to The Lord’s Supper) has been utilized as an opportunity for church congregations, ministry leaders and councils to reflect again on the gracious nature of faith.

June 4, 2013 0 0 comments

Grand Rapids, Mich. – The Board of Trustees of the Christian Reformed Church in North  America met on May 2 and 3, 2013 at the denominational offices in Grand Rapids, Michigan. During this meeting the Board...

June 3, 2013 0 0 comments

Overture 15 from Classis Northern Illinois asks that we “Mandate Denominational Agencies and the Board of Trustees to Develop Concrete Strategies to Carry Out the Great Commission.” This is supported with four grounds (reasons):

May 28, 2013 0 9 comments

This year at Synod, Classis Zeeland wants us to “Appoint a study committee to expand on the 1973 report and conclusions on homosexuality.”  And Classis Pacific Northwest wants us to “provide pastoral advice on the issue of gay marriage.” Now, people of God...

May 23, 2013 0 27 comments

A key topic of discussion at Synod 2013 will, undoubtedly, be the bi-national character of our denomination.  Also undoubtedly, it is brought forward to us in Overture 5 from Classis Toronto and in Overture 6 from Classis Niagara.

May 23, 2013 0 4 comments

A key theme throughout the Agenda for Synod 2013 is the necessity to restructure the denomination. I’ll admit I feel anxious putting this out there but only because I’m going to be blamed for saying in public what any number of people have wondered about it private...

May 21, 2013 0 4 comments

Although I read through the Structure and Culture Report (page 348), although I looked at the budget numbers, I remain unconvinced that the tail isn’t trying to wag the dog.

May 21, 2013 0 3 comments

By far, the issue with greatest coverage in the Agenda is that of a Study Report out of the Office of Deacon Task Force.  I really recommend reading it for yourselves as I believe the report is a model of how these things ought to be laid out.  It is confessional, conversant in the relevant threads of church polity and winsome to boot. 

May 13, 2013 0 3 comments

I confess to having run stuck on Overtures 3 & 4. Perhaps you have too? No matter your opinion, most of us aren’t diffident in holding them or taciturn in voicing them.  Let’s own that at the outset.  These overtures seem likely to create a 2013 synod sensation. 

May 7, 2013 0 60 comments
Discussion Topic

It seems, according to the latest posting on The Banner's website, that we're having a difficult time finding a new executive director to head of the Christian Reformed Church in North America corporation. It seems as though the latest nominee withdrew before the Board of Trustees interview and...

May 5, 2013 0 4 comments

I mentioned in my last blog post that I have never been a delegate to Synod. Judging from that post, I’ll bet you can see why. But I do have an inkling of admiration for the Sheila Holmes and George Vander Weits and Thea Leunks of our denomination. God bless them, every one!

April 24, 2013 0 3 comments

The Church Order can teach us a few things about Synod and all of these things outlined are laudable goals and important issues for the life of the denomination: ecumenical relationships, orthodoxy in belief and worship.  But I still don’t see the why in Synod. Is it possible the day might come when we recognize a thriftier and swifty-er way of doing the work commissioned to us? 

April 23, 2013 0 5 comments

THIS YEAR-- dear brethren & sisteren, I have done it.  In a feat of institutional fortitude, I have thoroughly skimmed the entire agenda, even marking pages for further consideration.  So you might ask yourself (with apologies to the beautiful Hebrew Seder) “How is this year unlike every other year?”  Well, dear reader, this year I am your official Synod blogger!

April 16, 2013 0 15 comments

The Board of Trustees of the Christian Reformed Church in North America met on Feb. 21-22, 2013 in Burlington, Ontario. Here are some of the key items and decisions.

March 6, 2013 0 1 comments

Grand Rapids, Mich. – The Board of Trustees of the Christian Reformed Church in North America met on Sept. 27 to 29 at the Prince Conference Center of Calvin College in Grand Rapids, Mich.During this meeting the Board:

October 15, 2012 0 5 comments

Synod and Summer 2012 have come and gone. Where I live the weather was hot and dry. Some synod discussions and debates surely may have been hot, in committee, over mealtimes and in plenary sessions. But from what I heard and gleaned, they were never dry. Nor was the Synod Network conversation.

September 8, 2012 0 0 comments

As the church order implications of our recommendation were discussed in 2011, a motion was made from the floor to delete one sentence from article 59 of the church order: “This public profession of faith includes a commitment to the creeds and confessions of the Christian Reformed Church.” That motion was discussed and approved without comment from our committee, but the instant it was passed we realized that we had blundered in our silence.

August 27, 2012 0 2 comments

This piece is neither a report nor an evaluation. It is an account of my own feelings and reactions to Synod 2012. Feelings, as we all know, are fickle. Some of mine are not as vibrant as they were that first week in June. But they continue, nonetheless, so I am taking the risk of sharing some of them with you who are reading this now.

August 21, 2012 0 17 comments

How about a comprehensive creation care audit of our denominational, congregational and personal practices and attitudes of entitlement or perceived necessity, not just to reuse and recycle, but to reduce environmental impact? 

August 13, 2012 0 4 comments



You can't have it both ways, Keith.  If it is not an official voice, it ought not to have a minister as editor, and it ought not to be paid for by the denomination and sent freely by the official crc dollar to every home.  You can't have it both ways.

Sexual intercourse is part of marriage.   But it is also part of fornication.   It is the committment and promise that indicates which is which.


Thank you John for your comments.  You have helped to clear some things up.  I see you are not a five point Calvinist, so you should have difficulty signing the form of subscription for the CRC.  I think that might have been one of your criticisms of Edwin Walhout.  You obviously don’t believe in total depravity, unconditional election, limited atonement, probably even “irresistible grace.” And you obviously can’t accept all the statements in the Canons of Dort.

From what you say, it sounds like a person can both accept or decline on God’s offer of grace.  He’s almost totally depraved but not quite.  Your analogy of the father entrusting the son with his money, as well as your comments in this last response completely support a depraved person, but not ”totally depraved,” maybe just a bad person. Not a Reformed understanding of total depravity.  As to “unconditional election”, again you indicate that a person’s acceptance by God is based on the condition of his willing acceptance of God’s offer.  So you see (according to you), there is a condition that God looks for in an individual before accepting that person into his kingdom. That’s conditional, and maybe you can’t even call it election.  God chooses those who choose him?  Sorry John.  You are way off base as to Calvinistic leanings.  As to “limited atonement”, your perspective is that God’s salvation is only limited to those who choose God first.  In other words it’s an unlimited atonement. The offer is made to all, and now all can either respond or not.  Any and all can make their way to God.  You sound more like a Freewill Baptist than Reformed.  I laud you for taking such a position while claiming to be Reformed.  But in your heart, you’re obviously not Reformed.

When Paul describes his enslavement to sin in Romans 7, he is not describing a person who can walk away from his enslavement.  He’s a SLAVE, and a slave does not have walking rights, as you suggest. You say in your last response, “You can accept, trust and obey.”  That’s definitely not Paul is saying.  You misrepresent him terribly. His freedom from slavery came to him when God chose him in Christ. Don’t you remember his Damascus road experience?  That was not Paul coming willingly to Christ.

So thank you, John.  You cleared some things up for me.  One, you are not a Calvinist or Reformed.  From previous articles that you have written, I thought you were, but maybe I’m mistaken.  You obviously don’t like the inconsistencies that are taught in the Bible either.  I would gather that you don’t much like Jesus’ teaching regarding salvation by works either.  Jesus obviously teaches that the distinction between those who go to heaven and those who go to hell is a matter of works.  The sheep are accepted into the Father’s kingdom and the goats are consigned to everlasting anguish in hell.    His parable of the talents also support a salvation based on works, what we do with our talents.  His story of the good Samaritan, again supports acceptance by God based on works.  Even the parable of the wayward son demonstrates the father’s forgiveness based on the son’s willing return. In fact the majority of Jesus’ teaching shows that acceptance with God is based on the mark we leave, whether good or bad.  Again this just shows the inconsistencies of the Bible’s teaching. Paul’s teaching does not match what Jesus taught And to reconcile these differences with each other, Christians have to do a lot of manipulation.

But all this comes back full circle to the inspiration of the Bible.  How do you reconcile the inconsistencies of the Bible and call them all inspired by God.  And of course, Christians have been throwing out different parts of the Bible or manipulating them to say what they want from before the time of Christ right up to the present.  Hence the varieties of denominations.  How can one even think (with any integrity) that the Holy Spirit will lead his church in all truth?  So what makes the Christian faith the one true faith?  And what makes you think that God really created all there is, including our world when the physical evidence for your position is lacking?  Thanks again for your listening ear.


There seems to be an illusion that The Banner is the 'official' voice of the CRCNA. That designation disappeared from the cover of The Banner back around 1980. I am not sure if that took place towards the end of Les De Koster's tenure as editor, or early on in Andrew Kuyvenhoven's reign. But I recall the discussion clearly. By being the official voice of the denomination, it could only spout official denominational policy and regurgitate synodically-approved decisions.

To be clear, The Banner is not the official voice of the denomination. It was designed as a CRCNA-supported publication designed to educate and to spark debate about issues relevant to the church today. I personally bemoaned the decision of The Banner to become a popularized, church-bulletin publication that reflected cute news stories about how some high school's basketball team made it to the state finals. We witness the result of that theological 'pulp' today: we become upset whenever The Banner dares to bring some serious, thought-provoking debate to its pages.

The Banner needs to return to longer articles and debates that will lead to critical thinking about the important issues of the day. Challenge our faith, help us question why we believe what we believe about Genesis and infant baptism and, aghast!, gun control. The Banner needs to return to its roots. More importantly, CRCNA members need to return to critical thinking. We have been fed church trivia for a decade or two. It's time to put some flesh to our faith and to what we believe.

Roger, I was just listening to a video on facebook, and on this video was being read the verse  where Jesus says that not all who say, "Lord, Lord" will enter the kingdom.  But only those who do the will of the father.  In spite of your sinful nature and your inclination to defy God, you don't have to deny Him.  You can accept, trust, and obey.  Arguing about it theologically will neither justify you, nor will it save you.  I disagree with your analogy, because your sinful nature does not prevent you from accepting the gift God gives;  it only inclines you against accepting.  If you are controlled by your inclinations, that is a problem.  We know that from personal experience in our daily life.  So pray for God's spirit to control you.

God never broke anyone's legs in the sense of your analogy.  God did not create us with a sinful nature.  Man broke his own legs thru the choice God gave him, thru his fall, and his inability  to run the race is part of his fallen humanness, not the humanness that God created him with.  God provides the wheelchair, but man refuses to sit in it or refuses to operate the controls.  He complains that he should not have broken legs, and says that God should have prevented him from breaking his own legs. 

God provides the means to be saved from drowning, but often people swim in the wrong direction, or refuse the lifeboat or flotation device or the rope or plank offered to save.  They have their own conditions for salvation, and thus die.

"God so loved the world, that He gave his only Son, that whoever  believes on him, shall not perish but will have eternal life.  Whoever believes on him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already.  Everyone who does evil hates the light..."   God provides the light, but "men love darkness instead of light, because their deeds are evil..." 

Blaming God for your own sin is inconsistent.  Blaming God because some people reject him is illogical.  Blaming God because he does not ensure that everyone exercises their free will to obey him, is making yourself God, while at the same time making people robots, also a logical inconsistency.  When God exercises a special grace to rescue someone like the apostle Paul, that does not justify others who reject  the obvious gift of grace God has made known to them through scripture or the witness of others.

God's grace is sufficient for everyone.  Christ's sacrifice was big enough for anyone and everyone.   But rejected by many.

Romans 7 indicates that Paul says that when controlled by the sinful nature we bore fruit for death.  But now, dying to what previously bound us, dying to our own notions of our own goodness, we serve in the way of the spirit.  I have the desire to do what is good, but cannot carry it out in the way I want, says Paul.  So Jesus rescues us from our sinful nature, and we may live in the way of the spirit, instead of in the way of the sinful nature.  Do we want to reject this rescue?  Can we accept it?   Many have accepted it, and the mind controlled by the Spirit is life and peace.  Do not let your argument with God keep you from accepting his gift.


Thanks, John, for your comments.  I think you fall way short in your logic.  Your analogy of the father entrusting his son with his money falls way short of the picture of God’s love or discipline. Your story assumes that the son has the ability and freewill to either obey or disobey his father.  But the fact is, the son does not have the ability or free will to obey him.  That is the point of the apostle Paul’s recounting of his own helpless condition and enslavement to sin.  

 A more faithful characterization is the story of a father who tells his son to get upstairs to his bedroom after the father has broken the son’s arms and legs, and now the son has no ability to get upstairs.  And so the father, because of the son’s disobedience, takes him out behind the woodshed and beats him unmercifully for his disobedience.  He couldn’t obey his father, even if he knew he should, because his father has disabled him.  He was disabled by the father by imputing to his son a sinful nature (broken legs) by which he was not able to obey, as well as crediting him with Adam’s sin (broken arms) and giving him an impossible standard to achieve, absolute perfect obedience.  But you are saying it is still the son’s fault for disobeying his father, and he is responsible for not doing what he had no ability to do.

You see your analogy does not measure up in the least to what Paul describes in the Bible.  Are you writing your own infallible Bible now?

But now for an analogy of God’s electing purposes. I think you would admit the Bible teaches a limited atonement.   Here’s the analogy.  A father takes his five young sons out fishing in a lake.  The boys all get rambunctious and tip the boat over.  Boys will be boys.  They all were at fault.  The problem, though, is that none of the sons can swim.  But the father is an excellent swimmer and has many medals in life saving.  But to the surprise of those watching on shore, the father saves only two of the sons and leaves the other three to drown.  He could have saved all five if he had wanted to but chose only to save two.  That’s the limited atonement of election.  This is neither love nor justice.  In a court of law in our land the father would never be pardoned.  But I’m guessing you will say that God’s love and justice isn’t measured by our courts and we shouldn’t question him. But logic to anyone’s thinking today, would say something is rotten in Denmark.  If we are God’s image bearers, is this the kind of love we are to display to those who surround us?

You see, it is this teaching in the Bible, that makes the Bible either inconsistent, illogical, or abhorrent.  But Christians can hide this teaching, that is central to the Bible's teaching of salvation, by continually ranting that God is love and wants everyone to be saved.  Really?  Or are you going to point me to a Biblical inconsistency? 


Well said, Roger.  You have stated well your perspective, and the perspective of many about christianity and scripture.  One sentence however, caught my attention: where you quote, "why does God blame people for not responding?  Haven't they done what God made them to do?"  Paul responds that we do not have the right to question God in this regard.  As humans, we have no right to blame God, nor our parents, for our own sin, or for our own rejection of God.  It is still we who reject God, isn't it?  We know that people accept God, and follow Christ.  Is it physically and mentally impossible for humans to follow Jesus?  Obviously not.  So why would we blame someone other than ourselves?  It is our tendency to blame someone else that reveals our sin and our rejection of God.  But at the same time, if we love God and accept Jesus as Saviour, it would be a denial of our sin to suggest that we could do this on our own.  In all cases, we give God the credit for our salvation and for the gift of faith, and realize that in our failures it is we, not God who is to blame.  

Suppose you were trusted with your parents money, but then stole it, and your father brought you to justice, and you went to jail.  Now your father pays the bail, and you get out.  If you refuse to leave the jail, is it now your father's fault?  Is it your father's fault that you stole because he trusted you with his money?  Is your father unjust because he brought you to court?  

Infralapsarianism is where man's responsibility is determinative, while supralapsarianism relates to God's responsibility being greater.  While these are interesting perspectives, it is better not to over-doctrinalize too much and simply live our lives, and not try to live God's life for Him,  If God gave us the choice to follow him, and we discover that without God's grace and gifts, we would always reject him, we find that our free choiosing always makes the wrong choice by itself, and makes the right choice by God's grace.  In trying to take credit for making the right choice by yourself, you might simply be making yourself your own god.   On the other hand, be thankful when you follow Christ.  

"Heb 6:10 God is not unjust; he will not forget your work and the love you have shown him as you have helped his people and continue to help them. 11 We want each of you to show this same diligence to the very end, so that what you hope for may be fully realized. 12 We do not want you to become lazy, but to imitate those who through faith and patience inherit what has been promised."


The Bible clearly teaches it is the initial act of sexual intercourse which initiates the marriage. Jesus went to the marriage at Cana to party, not to officiate.

I have been told that in The Netherlands the church ceremony only confirms the government-issued marriage license. In the US, the pastor acts as a government agent.

Hi again, John.  I’m sorry if we seem to be keeping Edwin out of the loop in our dialog.  It might be interesting to know some of his thoughts.

Your last response, John, was quite lengthy and got off target, at least from the topic of evolution.  Maybe that wasn’t really the main topic.  Maybe the topic or question is  “what is truth?”  And that can have to do with evolution versus Biblical creation or which religion, if any represents truth best.  Maybe this is where Edwin’s perspective might be interesting, in regard to his original article in the Banner.  

As to evolution or not, I have not tried to imply that evolutionary theory has all the answers or doesn’t have problems of its own.  As you have pointed out, it seems as though there are many problems. But I do think that today’s scientists would still say, problems or not, evolution (including macro evolution) offers the most reasonable and logical explanation to the age of the earth and the origin and development of life.  And eventually answers will be forthcoming to your criticisms, if many of them have not already been answered.  To scientists today, evolution is the much more logical approach, than whatever other explanations can be offered up, including a literal understanding of Biblical creation.  As to origins my bet rides with the scientists of today.

But now to the crux of your last response.  It seems as though you are more concerned with finding the fault with other religions than pointing out the logic of Christianity.  Find fault with the opponent.  If fault can be found, then that leaves Christianity (especially Reformed Christianity) standing tall.  And of course, you would say there is no error in Christianity.  So I would like you to consider just one area of Reformed Christianity or what you might call Biblical Christianity.  That area has to do with the “election” (predestination unto salvation) of the saved.  And of course this really touches on the heart of Christianity.  It has to do with salvation in Jesus Christ, your only “comfort in life and in death.”

I hand it to Reformed Christians, historically they have taken the Bible very seriously, as you seem to do, as well.  Of course, that means you can’t ignore what it teaches or sweep its teachings under the carpet.  Hence, the teaching of Scripture on election is upheld and not denied in Reformed thought.  But the question of what does the Bible teach about election has been debated through the ages.  Does the Bible teach an infralapsarian or a supralapsarian perspective.  Does it teach only an election of the saved or also the election of the lost unto damnation, single predestination or double predestination.  Most today, even within the CRC, hold to an infralapsarian position, although the confessions are not altogether clear on that; it could go either way.  Consider the Canons of Dort, 3rd and 4th main point, arts. 1-5.  They seem to support the more severe view of election.

Double predestination (supralapsarians) dictates that not only the saved, but also the lost, were predestined from eternity past to their final state whether it be salvation or damnation, even in the mind of God.  Of course this means God never had a sense of love in Christ for the lost, in fact his only intention for the lost was eternal destruction. In fact, God created them for that very purpose (eternal damnation).  Therefore, there is no sincere offer by God of the gospel to those whom he has determined for eternal damnation in hell.

To verify this position, there needs to be Biblical support, which there is.  First, to gain God’s acceptance and love by one’s own effort, a person has to be perfectly good, an impossible standard to attain.  All have sinned and fallen short.  In fact it is impossible to please God by one’s own effort.  This is the first barrier that God has placed before humanity, a standard of absolute perfection, which cannot be attained.  Secondly to insure that this impossible standard is not met by humans, God has credited to every person the sin of Adam.  So even before birth, a person is a condemned sinner, condemned by God.  This is something that God has done, apart from human decision.  And then third, God has imputed the sinful nature of Adam to every human being.  By this sinful nature, given by God, it is impossible to live up to God’s standard from birth on.  In fact, according to the Bible, a person can’t help but to sin continually.  So God makes salvation for the majority of humanity (all, other than the elect) an impossibility. He does this by giving an impossible standard for people to achieve, also,  by crediting all of humanity with Adam’s sin even before birth, and also by imputing a sinful nature to all people so that they cannot help but  to sin and therefore meet with failure.  These are the actions of God.

In Romans 7, the apostle Paul talks about his struggle with sin, apart from Christ.  He paints more than a helpless picture, but even a desperate picture.  Although in his mind he knows what is right and good, he can’t do it.  He fails every time.  He has no power to do the good he knows he should do because of this sinful nature.  He concludes by saying what a miserable person he is, one whose life is dominated by sin and death.  He is describing here the human condition, the condition of all people who have had this sinful nature imputed to them by God.  

When Paul cries out, who will deliver me from this helpless condition, the answer is Jesus Christ.  Paul is in no way taking credit for his salvation or even for choosing Christ.  He is just thankful that God in Christ has chosen him for salvation.  He’s thanking God for his election in Christ.  Anything more, would be giving Paul himself credit for choosing Christ.  According to Reformed thought it’s the other way around, Christ always chooses us.  For those not chosen by God’s electing love, they remain destined for destruction by which God’s has insured their lost estate and damnation. It’s really hard to understand why God would blame humans for their sin and hold them accountable, when God is the one who has insured that they could do nothing but fail.  Logic says that God is the one at fault.

So Christianity has a God who has predetermined that the majority of the human race will go to hell for eternity.  Reformed Christians talk about God determining not only the ends but also the means to accomplish the ends. And now you see how God has determined both in regard to the lost.  This is the picture of God that the Bible portrays to the world.  Is this the desirable picture of God that the Bible holds up to the world?  Is this what we mean when Christians talk endlessly about the love of God.  Obviously the love of God in Christ is only for those whom God has predestined for salvation from before the beginning of time and not for the majority of the human race.

Of course when a person, especially one who is damned by God to hell for eternity, protests his plight the apostle Paul gives this answer.  “Why does God blame people for not responding? Haven’t they simply done what he makes them do?”  No, don’t say that. Who are you, a mere human being, to argue with God? Should the thing that was created say to the one who created it, “Why have you made me like this?”  When a potter makes jars out of clay, doesn’t he have a right to use the same lump of clay to make one jar for decoration and another to throw garbage into?  In the same way, even though God has the right to show his anger and his power, he is very patient with those on whom his anger falls, who were made for destruction.”
 (Romans 9:19-22)

You may claim that when Scripture is taken as a whole, we get a different picture.  But this points out either a blaring inconsistency in the Bible’s teaching or shows that the apostle Paul was not on the same page as other Bible writers.  We know he did have disagreements with Peter, and probably with most of Christendom today. This certainly says something as to how one should understand the inspiration of the Bible.

The Bible’s inconsistent teaching about salvation in Christ is so glaring that it doesn’t sound any better than other religions, in fact it sounds far worse.  So now I wonder if your last response in this blog about the failure of other religions really holds any water.  Maybe it is time to start evaluating the teachings of the Bible, as Edwin suggests.  Sorry about the length of this comment, but I could have said a lot more.


Or, the sex act is adultery, or fornication.

Isaac's example is clear.  His father sent a servant to get a wife for him.  His union was anticipated and publicly approved and acknowledged.  It was acknowledged as marriage, a permanent committment.  No one questioned whether this was a trial period, or a partnership of temporary convenience.  It is our lack of understanding of marriage that sometimes creates the issue, especially when we have cohabitation as an imitation of the world's view of sex and marriage.

It is not primarily the state that validates marriage, nor even the church.   Instead it is the public and private committment for marriage until death do us part that is the marriage.  The state and the church facilitate this committment, and consolidate and support this committment.   But when young cohabiting people deny they are married, or fail to announce their marriage committment in some public way,  they are simply indicating a lack of committment, a lack of marriage.  If they are committed, they ought to use every means at their disposal to support that committment.  They should not leave their committment in question.   Instead, they are reserving the right to renege.   This is not the way of christian living, but the way of the world, and should not be supported by the church.

Scripture asks us, no tells us, to defend the faith and contend for the faith.  (Jude)  To put on the full armor of God.  In that sense we mount the ramparts.  The struggle is the same as it has always been, between following God and following the world.  We like to do both, but it doesn't work;  it was the downfall of both Israel and Judah, and led to the decline of the roman cath church, which led to the reformation.

The reformed roots were to bring God's people back to scripture, rather than to man's opinions.  We are to be reformed from a life of sin and separation from God, towards a life of repentance and consecration towards God, using scripture as God's word, as our guide.  Accomodating to worldly living is not being reformed.   Being reformed is informing ourselves and others how the world should be transformed in its living if it desired to follow Christ.   Fundamentalism is a worldly concept, not worthy of comment.   Being a radical christian means dedicating all of life to God, not trying to accomodate our desire to be like the world.

When we have difficult questions, which we always will, they should be answered in a scriptural and reformed way, and not given the credence which caused the problem in the first place.  For example, since there are so many divorces, should we have an article in the banner saying that since there are so many divorces, that probably that is a normal state of affairs, which we should have a special ceremony for?  or should we have an article advising us to reform our lives and attitudes in such a way as to reduce the number of divorces?

A Banner that denigrates the basic confessions and supports immoral living has nothing to say to us that the world is not already saying.  If it continues to do that, it will cease to be a christian magazine, much less a reformed magazine.  The mandate of the Banner is not to imitate the Washington Post or the Toronto Star.  It is not to create controversy.   It is not to provide both sides of every issue as if both sides are always valid.  Rather, it is to be a witness to Christ, to contend for the faith, explain the milk and the meat of the gospel, and to help us put on the full armor of God.

Thankyou for your comments, David.  We have a tendency to want to forgive, but we should realize that the consequences of needing to forgive these kinds of things will lead to a decline in witness and effectiveness of the church.  At some level, these editorial indiscretions are like committing adultery.  Adultery can also be forgiven, but we want to make sure it doesn't happen again.

Roger, thanks for your comments.  It is a bit difficult to lump all other religions or faith beliefs together when comparing to Scripture.  There are various points on which each falls short.

Christians understand scripture to  be inspired by God and to be speaking the truth.   Yes there are sometimes different emphases, but differences are discussed in the framework of trusting scripture.  Whenever human ideas are placed on an equal plane with scripture, is when we have problems with heresy, lack of understanding, etc.  This was shown even in scripture itself, and also led to a need for the reformation.  But coming back to scripture allows for reconciliation, renewal, and unity.

Other faiths that believe in more than one god, or that make material things into gods, such as pieces of wood or stone or money or nature, are by and large irrational from the beginning.  However, scripture also indicates the ancient greeks worshipped the "unknown" god, which the apostle Paul suggested was the true God, whom they did not yet know.  The human desire to worship is a reflection of the way we were created;  so how do we find our way to the true God?  or, how do we let God reveal Himself to us?

A couple of belief systems built on christianity or historic scriptures but have added stuff, include mormons, bahai, and islam.  They basically orginate in somewhat of the same way, but are not the same.  How to compare these?  Mormons have added an entirely new revelation which was not even hinted at in scripture.  Golden plates, ironically only discovered by europeans rather than by aboriginals, and has anyone even seen pictures of these plates?  It's far fetched, but the main thing is learning when the book of Mormon contradicts scripture.  Furthermore, scripture is open, revealed, and available to all.  The things in scripture are by and large verifiable by history, ie.  rulers of Israel, roman conquest, syrian and babylonian rules, egypt, persecution of the church.  Scripture is written by numerous writers over a thousand years, yet makes a relatively consistent whole, with a direction, a beginning and end both historical and spiritual.  The books of the bible tend to refer to each other, and in that sense, validating each other.  The new testament writers had all met Jesus, and had met each other.  Of course, Mormons will claim their book is consistent with history, and in some peripherals it could be... but by and large it is a great stretch.  ( I have only read about a third of it.)

Islam also claims the prophets of christianity/judaism.  They even claim Christ as a prophet.  But scripture is clear, that Christ claimed to be much more than a prophet.  So if Christ is a prophet, somethings he said were false, according to Islam.  Which means there is an inconsistency and incoherency.   Of course, they say we don't have the true sayings of Jesus... which they would have to say, but as we find older manuscripts we are amazed at how similar they are to the newer ones.   So Islam tries to worship the true god, but because of their reliance on one man's words, they end up contradicting much of scripture.  This appears to put Islam into the category of false prophets which scripture warns us about.  Islam in some ways tries to do good things, ie. moral purity and daily prayer.  But it destroys the effect by forgetting that we must be born again in repentance, and that our thoughts condemn us, for which we need the sacrifice of Christ to redeem us.  We cannot redeem ourselves by our devotion nor by good works, we can only praise God with them.  And their methods of punishment often make them more impure than the ones they punish.  The immorality of the inquisition in Spain lives on in Islam today, and seems to be promoted by the Koran.   The inquisition at least was inconsistent with scripture, and so was an unchristian practice done by those who called themselves christian, thus requiring a reformation.

Bahai also claims another prophet.  But faiths built on prophets will fail as the prophets fail.   Jesus said that even  the jews who claimed Abraham as their father, and Moses as their prophet, would miss out on God, if they did not realize that only God had the ultimate claim on them.  Mormonism depends on Joseph Smith, and Islam depends on "Mohammed".  Without them, their system fails.   Christianity depends only on Christ, as revealed by all the writers of the old and new testament.  Additional writers and prophets such as Origen, Augustine, Thomas Aquinas, Martin Luther, John Huss, John Calvin, John Tyndale, Abraham Kuyper, Charles Wesley, Billy Graham, C.S. Lewis and many others, are only revealing scripture, not re-writing it, nor adding to it (or they shouldn't be, anyway), nor contradicting it.  If these other men contradict scripture, then scripture becomes the final authority, even though these may be sincere christian men.

In the end, just as believing in a piece of wood, or in nature, or in your self-sufficiency will let you down in the end, so believing in a false god will let you down also, either in this life, or in the life to come.   It is faith, not religion, that brings you close to God.  But religious life practices and beliefs can reveal truth or falsehood;  thus when mormonism advocated more than one wife in direct opposition to the epistles of timothy and titus, which said elders and deacons should be husband of one wife, they revealed a contradiction with scripture.  Most mormons have changed this now, but they had based this belief apparently on the book of Mormon, and so the book of Mormon has been somewhat discredited I would think.  I think in many ways, mormons are admirable people, but they follow a false book.

Islam is more problematic, because they follow a false prophet.   It would be like us following King Henry VIII as a prophet, or following John Calvin or Martin Luther or the Pope as a sinless individual.  Even King David of the bible was criticized by his generals and punished by God for his sins.  Certainly, has Mohammed  not revealed his own sins, while being unrepentant?  Should the words of such a man be considered inspired by God, and should he be followed as demi-god?

Sometimes there is no easy way to decide.  But pray to God that he will reveal to your heart who He is, and what He has done for us.


Hi again, John.  I hope I don’t come off as mean spirited toward you.  I know I have blogged, either on this site or on others, and have given the impression that I don’t like those I’m blogging with.   Please don’t get that impression of me.  If I sound caustic, it may be toward aspects of the Christian faith, but not toward individuals.  I do appreciate your willingness to debate, even argue.  I’m sure, for you, like me, it helps to clarify some of your own thoughts.  

I have heard you suggest to others, and now me, that it is those who know the least about evolution that seem to grab on to it most firmly.  But it also seems to be the opposite at the same time.  Those who know the most about it (the scientists) who also hold most firmly to it.  And as I’ve suggested before, even though the evolutionary scientists would admit problems with evolutionary theory, they see it as much more viable than the other theories that are in the arena, including Biblical creation.  That has more problems than you can shake a stick at.  In your last response, you said, “evidence is required beyond coincidence and beyond conjecture to support evolution.”  What evidence beyond coincidence and beyond conjecture  is there to support that the whole universe, and our world and its inhabitants were all created in a span of six single days?  That, to me, sounds like the impossible theory.  I’d like to sit in while a Christian scientist explains this to a group of secular scientists.

The arguments that you give for acknowledging the Christian faith are similar or the same as those given for acknowledging the truth and reliability of many other religions including the Mormon religion (and they believe in a friendly universe).  In fact, most religions will make claims for the miraculous and to verify those claims they all maintain their writings are inspired by God, and therefore completely trustworthy. And they too (the Mormons for example) claim witnesses to validate the truthfulness of their religion.  And all religions would assert that their God is not bound by the normal limitations that he has placed on the natural order.  Therefore the miracles of their religion should be considered as trustworthy and true. As absurd as the miracles of other religions may sound, they are no more absurd than the miracles of Christianity, such as a six day creation. So how does on decide which religion is the one true religion?  Thanks for your listening ear.


Thanks for your reply.  You admit you are not a scientist.  I have said many times before, and now again, that it is interesting how strongly those who have the least understanding of science are often the strongest defenders of evolution.  My scientific ambition is not to disprove evolution.  I will leave that to others.  My objective is simply to open minds to the possibility that macro-evolution is a myth.  Based on observable scientific evidence.  And based on the lack of evidence to demonstrate macro-evolution "microbes to microbiologist".    In any case, regardless of length of days, and regardless of age of the earth, evidence is required beyond coincidence and beyond conjecture to support evolution.  The number of transition fossils should outnumber the number of defined species, due to the numbers required statistically to get evolution to work.  We don't find that.  We have also found that just because animals were absent in the fossil record doesn't mean they were absent in real life;  so that is a problem for saying both when they appeared and when they disappeared or became extinct.  Genetic similarities are just as much an argument for common design, as for common descent, so they don't provide proof of macro evolution.  

There are many other reasons for not trusting the theory of evolution which I will not get into.  However, you can check creation. com, answers in genesis, and Ian Juby's Genesis Week for more scientific explanations of why evolutionary theory is suspect.  They are all available on the web, and present dozens of scientific reasons for distrusting evolutionary theory.  

Keep in mind also that one of the great inhibitions for many to accept Christ is his scientific claim of rising miraculously from the dead.  Scientific because it was observed by many people, and because he demonstrated that he could eat and drink afterwards.  Miraculous because it is against the normal reality of death, which is irrevocable.  And that's the wonder isn't it?  The God who created the universe is not bound by the normal limitations He has put on it.  

All the best to you. 


Well John, all I can say is, “my bad.”  I misspoke when I said that there was no science back in early historic days.  We could probably say though, that it (science back then) was very primitive.  In looking up the definition of “science” on the internet, the first definition I came to was, “a branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws.”  I don’t know if that is what primitives were doing when they learned that wood floats in water better than rocks, but I think you know what I was getting at when I made my comment about primitives and science.  We have come a long way since the time of the ancients.  I doubt that the ancients’ belief in a pseudo reality in which the gods of that reality interacted with the people on earth had anything to do with science, but rather with superstition.

You went to some length to explain why evolution is a dead end street.  I will agree with you, that there are a lot of kinks to work out of this theory.  I would imagine that evolutionary scientists will say the same.  And it may even take hundreds of years to get it all figured out.  But it still seems to be the best hope and the best direction that today’s scientists want to pursue as to dating the age of the earth and the origins of life.  It seems to have more in favor of it than what can be found against it.  You may disagree with that, but with the comments you have made in this post, as well as other posts, it seems like you present very little to discredit evolution.  Volumes and volumes have been written, and years and years of research have been done to support evolution.  So it is hard for me to agree with your premise.  I don’t claim to be a scientist of any kind so you can fire away at me at will.  My disagreement with you comes at a different level.

But now, what about the science that you support. You are suggesting that on the first day some ten thousand years ago, God said abracadabra, and instantaneously (within a day) there was light.  On another day, God said abracadabra, and instantaneously there were all the sea creatures and birds of the air.  On another day God said, abracadabra, and within that single day all the earth creatures including humans beings were brought into existence in their present forms.  Within a total of six literal days all that exists was magically brought into existence.

Wow, the renown scientists of the world are going to jump on that theory.  That’s not what you could even call science.  Do you really think there are no holes in your theory?  Scientists would have a heyday finding fault, if they would even consider your theory.  You say there is fault with the theory of evolution, but none with your theory?  Come on John.  Listen to yourself.

I’m not sure what you are doing as to your own scientific endeavors.  It sounds like your scientific ambition is to disprove evolution, rather than to prove Biblical creation.  It doesn’t take science to prove or support God saying, “Let the earth produce all the animals of the earth, including human beings,” and it’s done in a single day.  That’s religion, not science and has nothing to do with science.  So should it be any wonder that scientists reject your theory?    

Perhaps this is why, in part, other Christian realities make more sense, such as the Bible’s creation account being myth or fable.  It leaves space for God being the creator God and yet let’s science unravel the “how” of how he did it. And along the way to gain many valuable insights for the good of humanity.   I’m sorry John, you haven’t convinced me yet, and I doubt that you come close to convincing the scientists of today, other than so-called Christian scientists.


I'm really waiting for Edwin's response...   But, since you claim you actually exist, I will respond as if you do, to some of your statements.

 You mention various Christian realities.  Yes, they exist.  How would you determine which were man-made and which were God directed?

What makes the Biblical story of creation more reliable than other stories of creation?   You'd have to be specific.  But one of the other stories that would appear to be less reliable is that of the world living on the back of a turtle.   The biblical story is more reliable first because it was written down, second because it fits with what is observed, third because it makes a more realistic distinction between man and the rest of creation, fourth because it points out that light (in other words, energy and physical laws) was created before various distinct heavenly bodies.   It's also not a vague story about undefinable things, but actually leads to the first person who could be traced back through a lineage that was defined.  The other creation stories often resemble the biblical story, but an examination shows where the other stories seem to have lost either the realities, or the defined characteristics of the biblical story.

The biblical story also explains the origin of the struggle between good and evil, and why God wants to bring us back to the good creation as he originally created it.

However, no matter how accurate it is, and how much one simply believes it because he trusts scripture, the other reality is that evolutionary theory reached its apex some decades ago, and in fact has more problems today than it did twenty or fifty years ago, from a merely scientific perspective.  As an aside, when you say that there was no science in ancient times, it reveals that you need to learn a bit more both about ancient times, and about science.  Science is merely observation of nature, and utilization of it.  When people planted crops, they were using biological science thousands of years ago.  The bible even talks about creators of musical instruments, tools, workers of iron, etc., long before the flood.   These are all scientific endeavors.  Scientific knowledge has increased and continues to increase over time, but it has always existed.  Knowing that plants need water, and that a boat can float, is scientific knowledge.

Evolutionary theory still lacks the evidence of transitional fossils that we would expect, if it was true.  It still has no explanation for the development of the intricacies of various components of the human cell, or for the mechanisms of propulsion of certain single cell animals, nor for the origin of biological life using merely evolutionary mechanisms.  There is a lack of believable explanation of why certain organic particles can be found in supposedly millions of years old layers of rock or in dinosaur fossils.  There is a problem with being unable to accurately date recent volcanic rock with K-Ar methods.

Whether these things would eventually have explanations, the fact remains that there are more problems with evolutionary theory today, than there were in the past.

Christian science must use scientific principles to evaluate evidence, regardless of motivation.  There is much faith in evolution underlying the way it is examined and taught by evolutionists;  evolutionists tend to give their theory the benefit of the doubt, and that is probably causing them not to examine the problems with the theory in the same way as an objective non-partisan approach might do. 

I'm glad though that you are willing to examine some of these things.


Hi John,   But indeed I am a real person.  And it would take very little effort on your part to verify it conclusively, to in fact shake my hand and to talk in person, and to evaluate my DNA.  It would not be so easy to verify Baal’s existence or any of the gods that Israel’s neighbors thought were real, as well as the Jews thought at various times, or even the gods of other present day religions.  And I’m not daring you to step outside of your box (or calling you a scaredy cat, as you suggest).  

But if I were to step into what you call Christian reality (as you suggest), which Christianity should it be, the one claiming the stories of a literal six day creation, God’s appearance to Adam in the garden of Eden, as well as Satan’s as a talking serpent, all of this as factual reality or the Christianity that claims this as fable?  Do I step into a Christian reality that wants me to believe that Adam was the first actual created human being, or that he was more of a mythical character, or that he was the first human being to enter into covenant with God?  Or does it make any difference? . Which Christian reality should I step into, John?  I would guess that like you, the author of Genesis (some say Moses) thought he was describing what he thought might be real and what was handed down to him in story form, as factual reality.  But recognize that all ancient stories of creation were not science based (there was no science) and had little or no connection to reality. But just because Moses thought his story of creation and Adam was real it didn’t make it any more real than the other stories that circulated back then in early and ancient recorded history.  Even Christians would argue for the foolishness of these other stories.  What makes the Christian story of creation any more reliable than the stories of other religions?  They all claim inspiration from God, just as does the Bible.  Why Christianity?

It might be one thing to argue within Christian circles as to what is real and what is not in the opening chapters of Genesis. Within the Christian box, debate makes sense to those debating.  But put the Christian in a different box that debates science and origins, and should this Christian put the story of Biblical creation on the table as his foundation for science he would be thought to be totally unrealistic.  He would probably be asked to leave science to the real scientists. The Christian might even argue that the earth was created with the appearance of age (young earth proponents) to explain away the scientific evidence for an earth that is millions of years old.

Evolution may not be scientific fact, it’s still a theory (like Biblical creation), but it is gaining a lot more credence and support in the scientific fields, where God’s existence is not a factor one way or another.  You can’t say that for Christian science, the Bible is the foundational factor.  But I’m guessing that few scientists (other than Christian) would claim or agree that the world was created in six literal and actual days.  Where does that come from?  Oh yah, the Bible.


Roger, thanks for your comments.  I am curious to see how Edwin will respond to them.  On my part, I am not sure you really exist, since I have no real evidence, outside of some words written by someone appearing here on this page.  It might be a real person;  it might be a pseudo person.  :)  I won't say much right now... maybe later, other than that your suggestion that I am afraid to step or move outside (of something) is presumptious, and a bit school-boyish.  ("Scaredy cat, scaredy cat...") .  In that case we are all motivated by fear.   Edwin or I might suggest that you are afraid to step into Christian reality, and treat Scripture like a normal piece of literature rather than like a fable which it was not intended to be.  

The interesting thing to me is that common sense and a bit of research indicates that the theory of evolution is having more and more difficulties as time goes on;  yet many people continue to steadfastly believe in it without question.   I think they are afraid to let go, or even to examine it critically.  



It seems as though, we have a “comment war” between two people, Ed and John.  And I doubt that the two of you will ever reach agreement.  It seems as though you both have different starting points that will not allow your paths to cross in a significant way, or come to the same conclusions.  Ed is asking a “what if” question in his article, and John won’t allow for any “what ifs.”  

I’ll also ask a “what if” question.  What if the Bible is not the inspired word of God, as you both seem to propose.  The opening chapters of Genesis are antiquated in their origin, like many of the other ancient religious writings of ancient history.  They speak of realities that make no sense to the modern mind.  These chapters speak of a pseudo reality that fits an antiquated mentality that didn’t have the benefit of developed thought.  Religions of that time spoke of the gods existing on a different plane (pseudo) but yet who interacted with humanity on earth.  There were good gods and evil gods.  There were national gods and the false gods of other nations.  Not unlike these other ancient religions, Judaism and Christianity have a good God and a demigod, Satan, the archenemy of God.  The Bible records fanciful stories of God’s creation in six literal days, by which each day God brought about another aspect of the then known world.  It tells of God stepping down from his pseudo reality (heaven) and instructing humans (Adam and Eve), but also of the pseudo demigod doing the same in the form of a talking serpent and giving a conflicting message than God’s. The fanciful stories (the creation and fall of Adam and Eve, the tower of Babel, Noah’s arc, Cain and Abel, etc.) abound in the early chapters of the Bible, as well as throughout.  These fanciful stories had been retold over thousands of years before finally being put down in written word.  And now you, John, and many other Christians, want to hang on to these stories as though they are solid fact.

Are scientists today to assume that these fanciful stories of creation should become the bedrock of science and scientific endeavor?  Are psychology and human relationships to be built upon stories of Adam and Eve’s fall and redemption?  These stories are acknowledged as true and reliable by you John (and also I think, you, Edwin) by faith alone.  It is the accepting as true that which does not make, even, common sense.  But for you, the Bible is the God breathed word of God and is absolutely reliable and truthful, unfailing in telling us the realities of life.  

How is the Bible different from the Koran and the book of Mormon or the Hindu writings which also claim to be the true inspired word of God?  They say their own writings are absolutely true and the Bible is a false revelation of God, just as we say the same about them.  We say their stories are fanciful and therefore untrue, but the Bible’s stories are different.  Maybe all formalized religions are a weak attempt to further explain the God that is clearly revealed in his creation of the world.  And each religion puts its own spin on their attempts to reveal God who has already revealed himself in the creation.  I agree with Edwin, that the creation speaks the truth of God.  But I disagree that God needs further help to clarify his reality and his relationship to human kind.

Your original article, Edwin, hits the nail on the head.  Something is going to have to give with Christianity or it will become the ridicule of future generations.  Five hundred years from now, maybe less, Christianity will make little sense, especially seeing as it is based on fanciful stories and miracles, and seeing as science will increasingly make these stories seem very foolish.  I have a feeling that you, Edwin, are afraid to step outside the pale of Christian thought, and you, John, are afraid to move at all from an historic conservative perspective of Christianity which is already losing its credibility in our society. It is, indeed, true that the teachings of the Bible have to be accepted by faith, because it has little or no concrete evidence to back it up.  That being true it doesn’t really matter what God is revealing in his creation or what science is discovering about our world. The Bible (in Christian thought) is the final authority.  Christians today are obviously trying to bend either science or Christian teaching to line up with the other.  But to me the gap is becoming larger and larger.


An interesting side note:  Just this morning I was reading Hebrews 10 and into 11.  It seems God led me to a new awareness of a relevant passage in Hebrews 11: 3.  "By faith we understand that the universe (the worlds, the entire universe) was formed at God's command, so that what is seen was not made out of what was visible."   NKJ, NIV, NLT all have the same general translation.  By faith we understand that what is seen of the universe was not made from what can be seen.  

And verse 4:  "...Abel gave a more acceptable sacrifice... although Abel is long dead..."   It does appear that Abel actually lived, or he could not have died.  His faith was an example to us.  Hmm.  


Edwin, thanks for your response.

 Yes, we have some things in common, ie., scriptural authority, God creating the universe.   However, the extent of scriptural authority, the way we understand scripture, and the way God created the universe and people is important also.   It is interesting that you as a non-scientist, and me as one who has a B.A. in philosophy and English, as well as a B.Sc. in Agricultural science, should have somewhat opposing perspectives on the validity of evolutionary science, as well as on how to understand literature (the Bible).

Is it important to some degree to have a fall-back position that if evolution were incontrovertibly true in every aspect (mud to man, goo-to-you, microbes to microbiologist) then how would scripture be still relevant.  Is that what you are proposing?  An insurance policy?

Back to your comments.  Yes you are convinced of evolutionary theory in its totality, in spite of your stated lack of expertise;  and I am convinced there is a lack of evidence for  macro evolution, even though possibly the actual material of the universe might possibly be older than 10,000 yrs.   Although,  I think our minds cannot totally wrap around the possibility of time change, accelerated or decelerating expansion of the universe, etc.   Cases of radio carbon dating not able to deal with recent volcano formation accurately remains unexplained.  Cases of C14 material imbedded in much older(supposed) rock, remains unexplained.   Macro evolution as far as I can tell is based on speculation, on the basis of faith in the theory, on only one interpretation, and not on actual fossil evidence.    Documented fraud and error has been perpetrated by the evolutionary theory both in scientific papers and in classroom textbooks, particularly for the more well known assumptions of evolutionary theory, and particularly when it comes to theorizing on descent or evolution of humans.

But, you remain convinced that evolutionary theory is inviolable, so lets consider the typology problem.  You suggest that even if Adam did not exist,  people still sinned against God.  However, you have not provided a mechanism for their sin.  Why have they sinned?   Why are they disobedient?   Evolution theory suggests that there is no moral or ethical element in man’s development.  Evolution is a process of death, competition, destruction, elimination of the less able, of survival and selection of species and individuals.  Those are the morals of evolution.   Why would God counter his own creation process through his commands to people.  Or, why would God use a creation process so different from His own stated ideals for holiness, purity, kindness?   Even Cain’s murder of Abel would merely be a natural evolutionary act.

If Eden is merely part of the typology, how does it relate?   How could Eden then be anything other than the competitive, destructive, death dealing  evolutionary process?   What is the relevance in the typology of the fall into sin creating death?   Doesn’t that make the typology entirely absurd?   As a mere typology without substance, it would be seen to be absurd in the context of the evolutionary theory.  The question would be asked:  repent from what?  From my evolutionary instincts and process?

The difference between Adam, and Christian in “Pilgrim’s Progress” is that “Christian” is a reflection of the redeemed man (not Everyman), not the presumed ancestor or progenitor of everyman’s sinful nature.    Furthermore, if Adam did not exist, and if our sinful nature is merely our evolutionary process in action, then the validity of Pilgrim’s Progress will also be questioned.   The significance of the creation story perhaps lies as much in whether God really did create everything good or not, or what God’s definition of “good” really is.  Or in fact, whether God really spoke to man at all, or whether man created God rather than God creating man.

I find your identification of “new” and “old” somewhat limited, or perhaps lacking in depth.   We often say “new” in generic comprehensive terms without identifying what is old and what is new.  Ecclesiastes says there is nothing new under the sun.   Yet it seems new to us.   Hebrews 8-10 talks about the old and new covenenant but concentrates specifically on temple, worship, and sacrifices in particular.  But it maintains that in understanding this new covenant, he who continues to sin places himself outside of this new covenant, which sounds suspiciously like the old covenant, doesn’t it.   In other words, the old and the new covenant are different, yet inseparable.

So the Christians during the reformation brought new insights which were actually a return to old insights and precepts.   Having just read the first nine chapters or books of Augustine’s confessions, it became obvious to all of us in this study group, that Augustine’s experiences of 300 AD were very similar to our own in 2014.  New information does lead to new insights, true, but we should be very cautious about generalizations which are often untrue in specific cases.

On the science side, I would suggest that you not idolize the scientific community.   They are human beings like everyone else, like mechanics, doctors, engineers.   They do a lot of good stuff, but they make mistakes.   Doctors bleeding people in order to cure illness.  Lacking an understanding of bacteria, viruses.   Slowly finding ways to treat AIDS but not cure it.  Not yet anyway.

Scientists can work with things they can experiment with.   But going back in time?  Not so simple.   Lots of assumptions.   They may well find they were wrong on several significant points.  I am finding too many problems with their assumptions about layering of sediment, placement of fossils, age of volcanic rocks, undocumented leaps of evolutionary progress.

I am only 60 years old, so I have not yet seen everything.   One thing I have seen is that there are more scientific problems with evolution today than there were in the past.   Another thing I have also seen is that for many, evolution is   a religion or faith, held to most strongly by those who have the least information on it.   So that makes me doubly cautious, something like Augustine’s eventual suspicion of the Manichees who lacked knowledge of the basics.

God will lead and teach us, but not all will be willing to accept His teaching until forced to at the last day.  Evolution is the primary present day tool to lead us philosophically and morally away from God.   On its own, it justifies our  unlimited pursuit of money, superiority, material possessions, power, aggressive wars, lack of care for the poor.   It provides a rationale for abortion and euthanasia.  It supports the idea of a god as a blind watchmaker, if he exists.   If evolution can convince us to deny that God created everything good, and that Adam and Eve (man) were not originally responsible for sin, then Satan will be happy when people begin to think that really god is to blame for sin, not us, and that it is just and right that Jesus as god died for his own sin, and is absurd that he could pay for ours.

I am not quite so pessimistic as I sometimes sound,  so I trust God will use all of this for his honor and glory.   But we must not lose sight of the antithesis, of the battleground for the souls of men.  People of the church have too blithely assumed that Satan is no longer active, and that our sinful nature is barely relevant.   This sinful nature inclines human beings to look for an origin and solution outside of God.  This is the present day struggle, which is not a new struggle.     Jesus warned about all those who came to God in the last day saying:  “Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophecy in your name, didn’t we cast out demons, didn’t we heal the sick” and God says to them, get away from me, you workers of lawlessness.”   “Only the one who does the will of the Father in heaven will enter”.  This warning is always in my mind.





Response to your first communique.

Dear John,

Thank you for your candid and fair response.  You make excellent observations in the beginning of your comments, regarding what Paul writes in Romans about people being without excuse because they have constant contact with the creation that God made and through which he speaks.  Right on.  We have something at least in common!

     But then you go on to write, “I have a confusion and disunderstanding of your implication that God spoke things into existence while at the same time these things evolved from a spec of virtual nothingness.”

     I take it you mean, How can I affirm the truth of Genesis One while accepting the theory of evolution?  I do not find any contradiction here.  Why can’t we see that God employed the method of slow development over billions of years to accomplish what he wanted with the world he was bringing into existence?  So far as I can tell, to believe that what the scientists are telling us about such things as the age of the universe, the age of the planet earth, the appearance and developoment of life, as well as the emergence of human life does not in any way contradict what we read in Genesis One.  The scientists are describing as accurately as they can, with what they now know and are continually learning, how these things came to be.  In so far as they are accurate, Christians may understand that such truth also comes from God our Creator.

     And that is where, it appears, that you have your difficulty.  You write, “The issue is not what science teaches, but whether evolution is scientifically proven.”  I agree.  But it seems that where you and I disagree is whether the developmental theory is scientifically proven.  I don’t know whether or not it is even possible to prove conclusively that it is so, but from what little I have read I am personally convinced that this is the way God has brought the world into existence.  You are not convinced.  That’s fair enough.  The CRC as a whole is not yet convinced either, and I suppose that is the reason why Synod made the decision it did not to appoint a committee to investigate the theological implications implied.

     What you write about the typological interpretation of Adam involves is again good.  I know very well that it does not prove that Adam and Eve are not historical.  But it does suggest that if it should prove to be true that they are not historical, there still is a solid Biblical way of interpreting their significance in the Bible.

     You challenge me at some length to read the creationist authors you cite.  I have no expertise whatever in scientific matters and have not read very much along the lines of young earth theology or flood geology, but what little I have read does not appear to me to be convincing, whereas the other side of the matter does appear to be convincing.  I don’t consider myself capable of debating the science involved, and I do therefore rely on the people who do know the issues involved.  I recognize that the issue is still being debated, and I am content to let them work at it until some degree of unanimity is reached.  This may well take several more years, by which time I will be dead.  I trust the Lord will lead his church where he wants it to go, and for my part I am doing what I can to examine what the implications might be if indeed it becomes clear that the developmental theory is accurate.

     You write, “By implication also, if the first Adam didn't exist, then the second Adam also becomes somewhat anomalous or pointless, trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist.”  This is indeed an important point.  But your conclusion does not appear necessary.  If the Adam and Eve stories of the Bible are not historical, they are still typological.  If Adam represents, typologically, all of us human beings, then the reality of sin remains and the work of the Second Adam is just as necessary as we have always maintained.  The problem of sin does exist even when Adam is understood as typological.  We are all sinners, we are all Adams, we all make the same decision Adam did, and we are all saved by Jesus who is like unto us in all respects except for sin.

     I have no problem with your bluntness and candor, and I do appreciate that you did not resort to being “somewhat disrespectful” in your response.  I think we must relate to one another as brothers in Christ, not unfairly judgmental either way, but allowing God to be the final judge of the issues involved.

Edwin Walhout



Reply to Communique # 2 from John Zylstra

Dear John,

Thanks again for your analysis of the idea of a type of Christ.  You write, “If Adam was not historical, then how could you have a typology of a one man who brought sin into the world? Wouldn't your typology simply be untrue... a lie... a falsehood?”

     The answer is: the same way Christian could be a type of all of us in John Bunyan’s Pilgrim’s Progress.  In that allegory the person of Christian is understood as Everyman.  In the same way the Genesis stories about Adam can be understood as meaning Everyman.

When, accordingly, I read Genesis 3 I can substitute my name or your name when the name Adam is used.  I am confronted with the necessity of choosing whether or not to obey God.  Outside of Christ I choose wrongly, getting bad results rather than the good results I had been expecting.  I find myself, consequently, outside of God’s blessing, outside of Eden, under God’s curse for my wrong decision.  Yet I also have the promise that the serpent will be crushed under the foot of the seed of the woman, an event that for us is past, having been accomplished by the death and resurrection of Jesus.

I do not need to maintain that Adam and Eve were real historical persons in order to perceive their importance for understanding myself and understanding God’s sovereign control over all of life and history.  In fact I find it a more powerful way of understanding how the Bible impacts my life.  Surely to maintain a typological view of Adam is not “simply untrue … a lie… a falsehood.”  It is, on the contrary, a most vital and humbling call to repentance and faith.

I take now the liberty of congratulating you on your personal interest in coming to understand the way God works and how the Bible functions in his plan and purpose.  Not many people take the time to articulate their problems and difficulties with new ways of thinking.  It is good that you do so.

That being said, I think we need to recognize that God reveals new things to us from time to time, new insights that require us to rethink and reorient our faith.  He gave the Israelites at Sinai an entirely new pattern to control their national life, the Torah.  He gave the Jews in Jesus’ day a new covenant which mandated that they regard the previous covenant as outdated and no longer in force.  He gave the medieval Christians new insights into the gospel at the time of the Protestant Reformation. It is becoming more and more apparent that God is now giving us new insights into the matters that scientists are discovering about the universe and time and life.

I find that what Moses said to Israel at Sinai is a powerful insight into this method of God.  “The secret things belong to the Lord our God, but the things that have been revealed belong to us and to our children to do all the things of this law.” (DT 29:29) There is always a great deal we do not know, but God requires of us that we go by what we do know, what he has revealed to us.  In our day this means what God is revealing to us via the scientific community.

You have profound doubts about the matters relating to the age of the earth and the provenance of humanity.  This is not a bad thing in itself; it is a process that the Lord is leading you through.  On an ecclesiastical level it seems also that the CRC is at somewhat the same stage, not being yet convinced one way or the other, and hence perpetuating the tradition.

For myself, while I am not a scientist and unable to argue scientific matters, I do think the Lord is calling us to better insights into his world and into the way he has been guiding its history.  It took God about seventy years to bring me to a breakthrough, so maybe there is good hope for you as well, and for the denomination we both love!  God go with you; he has all the time in the world to teach us what he wants us to know!

Edwin Walhout


ty·pol·o·gy....noun  1.  the doctrine or study of types or prefigurative symbols, especially in scriptural literature.
2.   a systematic classification or study of types.
3.  symbolism.

If Adam was not historical, then how could you have a typology of a one man who brought sin into the world?  Wouldn't your typology simply be untrue... a lie... a falsehood?   Did a different one man bring sin into the world?   what man?  how would we know?   Typology only works if there is truth in it.   If no lambs were ever sacrificed, could they still be a typology of Christ?   If Moses never led the people out of Egypt, could he still be a type of Christ?  If David was never king, how could he be a type of Christ (never mind an ancestor of Christ).  If Abraham never existed, then how could there be an Israel? 

If Adam and Eve never existed, then they never sinned.  Then God never said to them anything at all.  Then they never disobeyed God.   How do we know that anyone ever disobeyed God?  Cain then was not the son of Adam, and no promise was ever made to Eve and Adam about crushing the serpent's head.  No prophecy of Christ at that time.

The more I think about this, the more I realize how susceptible we become to the simple phrase:   "did God really say?"

The tastiness of the forbidden fruit was science/nature.  To say that this tastiness  revealed God's word in the fruit is what Satan wants us to believe.   


Edwin thanks for your response.

Yes, as to your main point,  God speaks to us thru creation, thru what is seen.  It is for that reason that even those who have not heard the gospel, are still without excuse, as scriptures say.  In other words, creation itself speaks of the majesty of God through its beauty, order, complexity, and magnificence.  It amazes us!  That should lead us to its creator and sustainer.  So we need to ask why it amazes us.  Why is God's goodness evident in it?  Why is God's power evident in it?

I have  a confusion and disunderstanding of your implication that God spoke things into existence while at the same time these things evolved from a spec of virtual nothingness.  Perhaps it is a problem of communication, of using words differently, but it is like saying that mechanic built an engine, while all he did was purchase it and install it.  or all he did was put fuel into tank.  Your use of the terminology means that you are speaking an entirely different language.

So you can say you accept everything in scripture, but you are speaking a different language when you say that.  You accept everything provided you can use a different connotation of the words?   For example, you seem to imply that if Adam is identified as typology in Romans 5, that this is an argument against Adam being historical.   There is no need for such a conclusion.   Historical figures can obviously be typological as well;  one does not exclude the other.  It is an irrelevant point to the real item of discussion.

One main issue you seem to be stuck on is the false synonyms of science= evolution.   They are not synonymous.  Just as geo-centrism and science are not synonymous.  The issue is not what science teaches, but whether evolution is scientifically proven.  In addition, if you are insistent on reconciling this according to the prevailing consensus, simply because it is a prevailing consensus, how then will you reconcile the miracles in scripture, with "science"?  How will you reconcile the resurrection which the prevailing science will reject?

Since I work in natural science, I ask you with no disrespect, how informed are you of the scientific objections to evolution theory?  Are you familiar with the findings and evidence and interpretations of, answers in genesis, Walt Brown's book, Ian Juby's explanations of fossils and fossil layers?   Are you aware that Darwin never published anything in a peer reviewed journal?  Are you aware of the creation science journals?   Are you aware of the antithesis imbedded in this whole discussion?

It seems to me that many people are aware that evolution leads naturally to theological revision of a major kind, but that such discussion is completely premature since evolution has so many scientific problems with it.  Furthermore, the potential for evolution to co-exist at partial levels with major God-spoken initiatives in the creative process is rarely considered.  So without understanding exactly what is proven and what is speculation, then any theological revision itself becomes mere useless speculation, likely (on theory of probability) based on half-truths or on complete falsehoods.

As an aside, it also seems to me that you are being "somewhat disrespectful" to Adam and Eve by suggesting they didn't exist.  Also disrespectful to all the geneologies, and other scriptural references to Adam and Eve, including Romans 5.  By implication also, if the first Adam didn't exist, then the second Adam also becomes somewhat anomalous or pointless, trying to solve a problem that doesn't really exist.  And in that case, you are trying to really listen to physical reality while making scripture a mere sideline.   I say this bluntly with candor.

The reality is that scientific endeavor has limitations.  Historical science and the interpretation of fossils and age of rocks has even greater limitations.   Unchallenged assumptions are a major stumblingblock.  Christian scientists would do well to challenge those assumptions.  Theologians with a marginal understanding of science should not inhibit these scientists, nor marginalize their efforts, merely on the basis of a naive unfettered belief in science, which in essence is merely the study of nature. Science is not lord over the creator of it.



Thank you, John, for the courtesy of your reply, and for the candor with which you write.

I “seem to deny” that God spoke creation into existence?  I do find that deduction difficult to understand.  The fact is that I affirm that doctrine wholeheartedly and make much more of it than is customary in our theology.  So if we ask Genesis One what is the Word of God? we get the reply: that activity of God whereby he brought the whole universe, including humans, into existence.  We need to listen to what God is saying in the creation fully as much as we need to listen to what he is saying in the Bible.  Or don’t you agree that God is speaking in the creation?

You say that I am my own arbiter of what to accept and what not to accept in scripture.  Surely you can’t mean that.  I accept anything and everything that God says, whether in natural revelation or in special revelation.  Perhaps you come to that strange conclusion based on the recognition that the Adam and Eve stories in Genesis 2 and 3 can be interpreted, as Paul suggests in Romans 5, as typology rather than as historical.  This is not an arbitrary decision on my part to deny part of the Bible, but to attempt to understand both what the Bible teaches and what science teaches (special and natural revelation) without contradiction.  Of course you may disagree with that method of reconciling the two, but it should not lead you to make such unfounded and somewhat disrespectful accusations.

But taking into consideration everything you wrote in this reply, I think you didn’t address the main point of what I wrote.  I asked the question whether or not we are willing to listen to what God says in creation, to believe what he says there, and make whatever adjustments appear to be necessary, if any, to our theology.  It is indeed my conviction that the Adam and Eve stories in Genesis are typological, not historical.  And if this is true, then it seems clear to me that theological revision will be required.

Edwin Walhout


In my perception, it is ironic, Edwin, that on the one hand, in your world, Adam never existed, yet on the other hand, God still spoke.  As your own arbiter of what to accept and what not to accept in scripture, it is difficult to carry on a rational discussion.  By your standards it would be as easy for me to deny that God spoke at all.  Especially that he spoke creation into existence, which you seem to deny anyway.  (or are you now suggesting a punctuated equilibrium?  or God of the gaps?).

It sometimes seems that the strongest believers in raw evolution theory are those who do the least examination of the empirical  difficulties with it.

Scientists who study origins without considering God' s word, and His role, just might be the same as a mechanic trying to understand an engine without considering the fuel that makes it meaningful  Just because they are studying God's world, does not mean they are listening to God, anymore than a teenager riding a God-created horse down a God-created trail to a God-created stream is listening to God.  Although scripture does say that even those who have not heard of Christ are still without excuse before God, because they can see God's hand in the world around them, if their hearts are open.


Michael, I would be interested to learn how Calvin College would respond to the Community Covenant Document  that Trinity Western Students and Faculty (in Langley BC Canada) sign and that has caused a firestorm in the media in Canada. Please look up the document on their website. In summary, many Canadian lawyers and teachers believe the graduates from TWU are unfit to practice law and teach in Canada. The Supreme Court overruled the teachers in 2010 but now the lawyers are starting the same process.

Paul you make a good point here. The CRCNA has at least 6 denominational boards with average of 12 members spread across North America involving lay people and Pastors. These Boards meet up to 3 x per year.

What is interesting to me is that the CRCNA does not have an overall Finance Board.  Each of the the 6 Boards mentioned already have a Finance Committee. In Canada these are  legally required as is an Audit Committee. The scope of the BOT needs to be decreased and taking Finance out would be a big step to decentralizing control.  To broaden and create more entry points it would be feasible to expand the 6 Boards with Advisory Committees. This could add up to 100 entry points!

Once that is done and all the small ministries (Disabilities, Safe church and a host of others) are rolled up into Home Missions it would be possible for Synod to meet once every two or even three years.

As I have said elsewhere, the whole CRCNA structure needs to be overhauled  and more responsibility placed back at the congregational level. Making Board members and Advisory bodies more involved with the congregations (and possibly accountable to them) would go a long way to achieve what you are saying. The cost to fund this could come from a reduction in positions of the smaller ministries of which some could be put in "sunset" mode, as I mentioned above, and defunding unsuccessful church plants .

The RCA is considering biennial General Synods. I had two separate conversations with RCA delegates who both complained about the diminishing role of deliberation at larger assemblies. Both of them felt that reducing the amount of work done by the broader group of people reduced denominational buy in. I tend to agree. 

Denominational identity and loyalty are directly tied to the amount of influence one feels they are able to bring to the denominational. I think in general we need to flatten, broaden and create more entry points for people to serve and participate rather than reduce. It does cost money but the broader the buy-in, identity and loyalty the greater the financial participation as well. 

I don't know what you read in my piece that suggested "higher". The challenge is to create a deep and broad pool. 

The language of "best qualified" has similar limitations as "higher" language. I've been involved in a variety of search processes at multiple levels of the church. The question usually isn't as uni-dimensional as "best qualified" but rather "gifted and qualified to bring X quality to address Y need which is most important at this time." All hirings are contextual given the present needs of the organization and the gifts and talents of a person in a job at a particular time then of course impact the direction of the organization.

This is why having a deep and broad pool of diverse candidates with a diversity of experiences and skills is so valuable. Our lack of diversity, not only with respect to ethnicity and gender but also experience limits our search processes. 

The Synod experience I think is important. I think varying the location as we've been doing helps bring Synod to different places in the country which is positive, and making room for more participation likewise helps strengthen the denomination. pvk

Hi Keith,

In what publication did you see a reference to this blog as "one of the 'latest' articles in the Network?" 

For just a few moments, I thought that George Vander Weit was back. I just saw this as one of the 'latest' articles in the Network. It took a while to realize that the piece is three years old and that, to my knowledge, he is still missing.

Is this piece's inclusion in The Network intentional, or is it a painful omission on the part of Network editors to archive this piece.

It was something that Harry said that caught my eye: The need for a sunset clause on some of the ministries and/or committees.

I occasionally facilitate strategic planning sessions for Christian non-profits. One of the first questions I ask is: "If you had to begin this ministry from scratch, would you?"  That question caught one particular group off guard and the said that, no, other organizations do it better than they do. So they folded.

What about a sunset clause for every local church; especially every church plant. Are they effective in spreading the gospel to the community? Is there another church that can do ministry more effectively?


And now a point about this most recent synod. It seems to have ended rather quickly, with very few substantive issues that required much debate.  Take away the bureaucratic appointments and the drivel over The Banner's editorial integrity, and there is nothing that couldn't be held over for another year or two. The CRCNA is one of a very few denominations to hold annual assemblies. The cost savings might fund an overseas missionary or two.

Aside from the "higher" that Lambert correctly resists/protests, I appreciated Paul's thoughts regarding the impact or impressions that folks experience being delegated and present. I had encouraged a Calgarian female elder who had "a blast" being there,and I know contributed to the conversation in the advisory committee she served. She'll go back to Calgary and RPC and let the folks know that some good things happened in Pella.

Again, we need to look for the best, most qualified to fill positions of leadership and administration, even when they're not the "higher" places.....either that or have a hiatus of a year without them, and see if the local church collapses...which it will NOT!  I do think it's a mistake to have the past leaders stick around as long as the BOT suggests, accepted by Synod 2014. Which, by the way, as a more seasoned attender, delegated or not, was a pleasant synod. Even the youngest delegate seemed to be enjoying it!  One cannot lament the result if one doesn't participate.

Lambert, the church has some of the same tendencies as the government hierarchies. They are always willing to fill what THEY perceive to a hole or short coming of the people. The law books  (in government and Acts of Synod in the CRCNA) are ever growing. Instead of a sunset clause on some actions or activities the church takes, the things they create always grow in people and expense.

I agree with you, let's give the local church some credit for the things they do and most often can do on their own.

How is it that we keep thinking that our Administrative offices at 1700 28th Street GR are 'higher''? They are not. They are different. The local church is the highest authority center in our system. One of the problems we keep bumping into in the CRCNA is thinking of GR as HQ and that its staff is in leadership over the local church. It doesn't work that way. How many local churches take their leadership cues from GR? Very few I suspect. We certainly don't. Nor did my previous two congregations. With regard to staffing our administrative offices, we ought to find best qualified...nothing else matters...and if it does, we still have a problem. 

Hi Lou,

The exciting thing is that churches have mostly responded very well in the past year.  Instead of keeping their total dollar amount the same and shifting it around, many have boosted their support significantly.  One church decided to increase their support of a CRWM missionary from $1000/year to $1000/month, fully meeting his goal for this year.  Another missions committee member told me he was upset with the new model and asked the team, "What are we going to do about it?"  They decided to boost their mission support budget by $6000/year.  If we are to move boldly into the future in obedience to the Great Commission, we do need to think through priorities.

For many years I had heard about a Presbyterian denomination in southern Asia that funded missions through a handful of rice taken from the bag for family use and setting it aside for missions.  I met the mission director and asked, "Is it true that people in your denomination do this every day?"  He said, "No, we do it at every meal."  In their poverty, they are totally committed to exalting the name of Jesus and willing to sacrifice to advance His cause.  The challenge to us as wealthy North Americans is clear.

Hi Steve,

This is where I mentioned on the Twitter feed that I concluded we were talking past each other.  I hear you speaking to the need for the denomination to stimulate the desire to serve in missions through a clear commitment to the life-changing, essential character of the Gospel.  "Salvation is found in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given to mankind by which we must be saved (Acts 4:12).  We certainly do need to re-emphasize in our day of relativism and pluralism that the Bible makes all kinds of exclusive claims about Jesus.  This builds the desire to serve in Gospel proclamation at home and abroad.  

I was addressing the mechanism for getting those motivated people to their field of ministry, which hasn't been working very well for a quarter century.  These are exciting days on the deployment side because our change in support-raising paradigm means we can send more people, but all of us need to work at the stimulation side.  And, truth be told, many CRC people are serving in missions with a variety of other organizations who would have served with CRWM in the past.



Thank you for this, Steve.

There is greater depth to this than from what can be ascertained from a Twitter feed. I am glad that CRWM is able to use this model to free space for new missionaries as CRWM only sends missionaries as are able to be created. Your 'shrinking missions' fact is that of demand. This demand is not our want or desire to send missionaries-- of course we do, and the more the better. It's an issue of demand that is constrained by our ability to create the position.

My point of clarification, coming from someone who is say, younger. I think you were circling the camp with this sentence: "CRWM chose to keep sending sons and daughters of the Christian Reformed Church to serve God in missions." This is historically correct. I mentioned on social media that there is a vast contrast between missionaries then and missionaries now. The number of missionaries actively entering the field is an issue of supply. The CRC has not been doing the best job in this regard-- and this is an issue separate from financial status. This brings up orthodoxy-- strong conviction and belief. We are not raising up missionaries the way that we were because, in my opinion, we are feeding ourselves wishy-washy statements, unchallenging gospel truth, and lackadaisical doctrine. How are we to fulfill the Great Commission if nobody is telling me that we are to be salt and light to the earth? Or "because I belong to him, Christ... makes me wholeheartedly willing and ready from now on to live for him."

We ought to be wise builders who build on rock-- Not foolish builders who build on sand. Those creedal truths are our rock-- and as Jesus said-- we must both hear and put into practice these words. That's how you'll raise up a generation of missionaries.

My heart aches for CRWM and for our overseas mission staff as they deal with funding issues.

I recently returned from India where I was witness to incredible church growth. K.P. Yohanan's Believers Church plants 17 churches per day across that nation.

I attended a ceremony for a class of Bible College graduates. These were 20-year-old young men, many of them having grown up in the slums of Mumbai and elsewhere, who were new Christians and who were determined to return to their slum neighborhoods to spread the gospel.  They went through a two-year Bible College training program with the express purpose of church planting.

Each one of those 20-year-olds said that they would plant churches and preach the gospel until they die ... realizing full well that they may only live three or four years before they will be killed for their faith.

My point is this: Is there a simpler, more-effective way to train young men and women ... something that doesn't require four years of college and then seminary training with an MDiv at its conclusion.

The demand is incredible in India -- and around the world. These graduates feel the 'urgency' to get out and spread the gospel. They 'ache' for the lost.

The Christian Reformed Church -- especially our pew-sitting parishioners -- don't see that urgency. Their focus is on the plight of our overseas missionaries and their families rather than on the thousands of 'lost' they may reach.

Last night I attended our church's congregational meeting where we are looking at a $3.5 million 'renovation' to our church building. It will make our comfortable pews more comfortable. We have numerous churches throughout our classis -- never mind our denomination -- who invest millions in their own comfort, building their own 'kingdom' rather than God's kingdom.

That $3.5 million could fund a new church plant in our city, providing $100,000 in salary and support for the next 35 years.

We as a denomination have lost the sense of urgency when it comes to spreading the gospel.

"The mission....has been delegated to His Church."  When spelled with a Capital "C" this gets fuzzy, but insofar as a lot of reformed folk understand "denomination," the Church has dodged and a lot of congregations duck when approached.  Used to the paradigm of a missionary having to have 12 to 14 churches supporting them at anywhere from $500 - $2000 each, what does a congregation that has perhaps four or five missionaries do to "up" their amount to the necessary level?  The obvious choice to some is "cut some entirely."

This is yes, a pattern of quarter of a century, as is the decrease in membership.  That is the trend that so concerns me; I don't see enthusiasm for mission in churches that are not successful in local evangelism either.  God help us....

The SPACT report in the Agenda for Synod was comprehensive but a few things jumped out at me, as someone who has been involved in a few major organizational changes.

1) a revision of job descriptions before an organization chart has been considered seems a bit premature.
2) a more concrete approach to the bi-nationality issue appears missing.
3) telling managers to change the culture is not a solution. The CRCNA has been at this for 30 years.
4) disfunction between the key ministries and the BOT is an organization problem not a people problem. 

There have been major changes in church attendance and the number of churches. In the CRCNA the number of churches has been growing while the members on a per church basis is declining (some 21% over the last 15 years). This puts pressure on Ministry Share income. The corporate organization in place today is not sustainable.

The SPACT committee gave an interesting option which had some traction with me. I have changed it slightly but it appears to go in the right direction. It entails reconstituting the BOT. The members should be the ED, the directors of the 4 key ministries and 2 members from the Boards of each of these ministries. This would be step one.

In two years, the four ministries could be reduced from four to three. Home Missions, World Missions and World Renew. (A North American ministry and two world missions one of which would be World Renew.) These three ministries would continue to be supported by an Administrative/Financial department.

All the smaller ministries, focused on North America, could be rolled into Home Missions. Probably at least three of those might be eliminated because their useful live time has been reached.

Over the next 3 years the three ministries plus Administrative/Finance could have some 30% of their staff in Canada to equal approximately the Canadian share of the CRCNA membership.

It might be safe to assume an amalgamation with the RCA over this time frame.

In Canada the CRCNA  would end up with an ED and three ministry leaders along with a senior manager for Administration and Finance. At that time the reconstituted BOT could include the ED of both countries and 1 or 2 members of each board (6 or 12 people).

Respectfully submitted for discussion purposes.

Harry Boessenkool

Sent from my iPad

I will certainly do what you suggest.

In making the suggestion of this candidate to synod I wish the mandate of the committee had also included a proper take over of duties time line.  What was announced seems a very unusual. A new person should have a very short overlap (5 days will do) with the outgoing (in this case 2 persons). It is extremely important that a new person start with a clean slate. Each direct report can make up his or her own "state of the union" in their area of responsibility. This should have nothing to do with the "retiring" folks. We appreciate their work and their contributions...but the golf course should be their new challenge.

In my career spanning 40 years I moved 12 times. Some pretty senior jobs too. The longest overlap was 5 days. That is a simple answer to Norms first question.

posted in: Long Goodbye

Agreed. Having the previous interim Executive Director and deputy Executive Director still in place sends conflicting messages to staff as to who is in charge. 

posted in: Long Goodbye

You make some excellent points.  I question the transition time-line from the perspective of financial management.

posted in: Long Goodbye


posted in: Long Goodbye

There is much wisdom here, Norm. 

posted in: Long Goodbye