We've seen what happens to Christian denominations & churches who start worrying about and changing things based on the questions: "How are we perceived by the world? Do they like us? Do they see us as relevant?" Things usually don't go very well for them.
As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. We will be 100% concerned with how HE views us.
Hi Larry, that makes more sense. Scripture is very clear that we the Church are to point to Christ as the head of the Church, and share the good news of the Gospel, shining light on the sin of unbelievers and pointing them to the forgiveness and salvation found only in Jesus Christ (not in good works, lest any man should boast).
If the people of the Church lose that focus, whether it be in pursuit of rugged power (being like "John Wayne"), or societal acceptance (being "woke"), or the recognition of our good works ("fixing" things ourselves), then we fail in our mission.
While I completely disagree with the resources that the CRC Safe Church agency is promoting in this article (and I would never encourage my children to go to these websites), I believe this article fits the mission of The Network, which is to provide a place for CRC members to share ideas and resources with others in the wider CRC community. Articles posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of the denomination as a whole (as is clearly the case with this one from Safe Church). And users of The Network are free to share their concerns and engage in dialogue via the Comment Section (as we are now).
Eric, you make a very good point. Let me try to explain this way...
Think of The Network as a church lobby or fellowship area after the church service. Members of the church are talking to each other, discussing various things. Sometimes members will say things that other members don't agree with. They may even contradict Scripture. They might say, "Breakthecycle is a great website for teens," or "I was checking out Loveisrespect and it has some good stuff on there." Should that church member be banned or censored from discussions because of that? Or would it be better for members who are grounded in Scripture to point out the horrible stuff on those websites that promote sexual immorality?
The Network is different than The Banner or the CRC website or the OSJ Facebook pages. Those are all official CRC outlets. The Network is designed as a general, open discussion area.
That said...I will admit that this particular article is different because it was posted by Safe Church, which carries the authority of the denomination. So it would be analogous to the Youth Pastor being the one promoting those sinful websites, while talking to people in the church lobby. In that case it might be time for the church Council to sit down with the Youth Pastor and go over Scriptural truth again.
Nathan G says that "Care for eternal souls is always tied with care for their present state."
There is the root of the debate. How do we define care?
Some within the CRC say that "care" for others means we stop eating meat in North America, because raising cattle produces CO2, and CO2 causes natural disasters in Bangladesh. Thus the CRC uses ministry share dollars through denominational agencies like World Renew and the Office of Social Justice to support private and government action to reduce CO2.
That's a HUGE leap!
We ALL agree on "care." But that "care" must begin and end with the saving Gospel of Jesus, triumphing over the sin in our hearts. THAT should be the message of the institutional church.
It is wrong for one side to define "care" in debatable, non-Biblical ways, and then try to force others to accept their narrow definition of "care."
I just went to your website and bought a herd as a donation. (Normally I wouldn't talk about donations publicly, but since the invitation was public, I thought I would do so.) The disaster relief work of World Renew and similar organizations is incredibly important and praiseworthy. The concern I have with World Renew is the increasing emphasis on global warming and CO2 reduction, which is highly debatable from both a scientific and a Scriptural perspective.
As for ministry shares, it was my understanding that World Renew shares employees, office & general administrative expenses, and other resources with the CRC, and those items ARE funded by ministry shares. In other words, if the building, electricity, gas, water/sewer, insurance, H/R, phones, some of the staff, etc. are paid for with ministry share dollars, then it IS accurate to say ministry share dollars are going to World Renew.
And that's not a value judgment or a criticism. Merely an observation from an accountant (which is what I am by trade). May God bless you richly in your work...and take good care of the herd that I bought!
Thanks for sharing that important information. It is true that ministry share dollars are not directly transferred into World Renew's bank account. That said, it would not be accurate to imply that World Renew is completely separate from, and receives no tangible benefits from, either the CRC or the ministry share system.
World Renew is an agency of the Christian Reformed Church (thus WR reports its activities to Synod every year). It receives tangible, indirect support from our denomination's ministry shares in ways that other agencies (i.e. Samaritan's Purse) do not.
I think it is also true that World Renew partners closely with the CRC Office of Social Justice in efforts to reduce and/or eliminate CO2 production, and considers it a moral duty to do so, correct?
Thanks, Wendy, for engaging with me on this matter. I truly believe this type of dialogue is critical when approaching issues like global warming, or the question of good works/preaching the Word. And I also thank the folks at The Network for providing a space for this conversation to take place.
It is essential that we keep in mind the difference between "calls upon" and "requires." The quote you gave above (I believe it was from Synod 2012) "calls upon" CRC members, churches, etc. to reduce their CO2 emissions. But Synod does not and cannot require us to work to reduce CO2, because the issue of CO2 production is most definitely NOT a doctrinal or confessional matter. It is merely a suggestion by one Synod.
For example, if I personally continue to produce the same or more amount of CO2, can I come under the discipline of my church elders? Of course not. At most, it is a debatable matter of personal conscience, much like dancing or watching movies. And at its worst it is a matter that is actually causing harm to our church, by fomenting unnecessary division, moving resources away from the preaching of the Word, and giving people a sense that their good works are bringing about personal or corporate justification.
I would hope, then, that even if one believes the core tenants of global warming theory, that one would be very cautious in using CRC resources to promote such a highly debatable theory, lest such a focus reduce the effectiveness of our efforts to help people who don't have enough to eat.
So I am very glad for the good deeds being done by World Renew on behalf of the members of the CRC. I would caution all of us to remember that God saves those He calls, whether their physical circumstances have been improved by charitable works or not. Christians can shower an unbeliever with good works, but if that person is not called by God, those good works will only drive that person further away from God. Conversely, if a person is called by God unto salvation, that person will respond to the preaching of the Word even if no good works are ever shown to them. Would you agree?
Thus we do not do good works to win others to Christ. The Gospel of Jesus and the Spirit of God are the ONLY means by which sinners are saved. Instead, we do good works because God has commanded us to do so. And our primary focus remains the preaching of the Word. That was Izaak's main point.
Amen! One of Satan's age-old tactics (I know, right...who believes in the existence of a literal Satan anymore), is to tempt the church into embracing the falsehood of works-based salvation and neglecting true Gospel salvation. There's a reason why so much of the climate change ideology, for example, is presented using religious terminology. "Climate witness" for example. The CRC must do a better job of preaching the true Gospel, rather than pandering to the world.
Edwin Walhout's ideas are not new, not in line with CRC teaching, and not particularly interesting or robust.
Obviously, the worst example is his support for the idea that Jesus Christ is not divine. How can someone abandon this bedrock Truth of Christianity and still claim orthodoxy?
Walhout's over-reliance on modern "science" also leads him to faulty theology. In fact, some of the scientific theories he elevates above Scripture have already been abandoned and/or modified by secular scientists, demonstrating why the Church should never alter its teachings to fit the fickle scientific theories of the day.
Read his writings to gain an understanding of poor theology; read Scripture for Truth.
I should try to get my church to compost. I would take the material myself. I'm always greedy for more organic material for my garden. I compost at home, but my family doesn't generate much on our own. Only one 20 gallon garbage can per year.
Posted in: Prayer for Asylum Seekers at the US Border
Immigration justice requires border security:
https://network.crcna.org/topic/justice-inclusion/biblical-justice/immigration-justice-requires-border-security
Posted in: Jesus, John Wayne and a View from the Balcony
We've seen what happens to Christian denominations & churches who start worrying about and changing things based on the questions: "How are we perceived by the world? Do they like us? Do they see us as relevant?" Things usually don't go very well for them.
As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord. We will be 100% concerned with how HE views us.
Posted in: Jesus, John Wayne and a View from the Balcony
Hi Larry, that makes more sense. Scripture is very clear that we the Church are to point to Christ as the head of the Church, and share the good news of the Gospel, shining light on the sin of unbelievers and pointing them to the forgiveness and salvation found only in Jesus Christ (not in good works, lest any man should boast).
If the people of the Church lose that focus, whether it be in pursuit of rugged power (being like "John Wayne"), or societal acceptance (being "woke"), or the recognition of our good works ("fixing" things ourselves), then we fail in our mission.
Posted in: February Is Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Month (TDVAM)
While I completely disagree with the resources that the CRC Safe Church agency is promoting in this article (and I would never encourage my children to go to these websites), I believe this article fits the mission of The Network, which is to provide a place for CRC members to share ideas and resources with others in the wider CRC community. Articles posted here do not necessarily reflect the views of the denomination as a whole (as is clearly the case with this one from Safe Church). And users of The Network are free to share their concerns and engage in dialogue via the Comment Section (as we are now).
Posted in: February Is Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Month (TDVAM)
Eric, you make a very good point. Let me try to explain this way...
Think of The Network as a church lobby or fellowship area after the church service. Members of the church are talking to each other, discussing various things. Sometimes members will say things that other members don't agree with. They may even contradict Scripture. They might say, "Breakthecycle is a great website for teens," or "I was checking out Loveisrespect and it has some good stuff on there." Should that church member be banned or censored from discussions because of that? Or would it be better for members who are grounded in Scripture to point out the horrible stuff on those websites that promote sexual immorality?
The Network is different than The Banner or the CRC website or the OSJ Facebook pages. Those are all official CRC outlets. The Network is designed as a general, open discussion area.
That said...I will admit that this particular article is different because it was posted by Safe Church, which carries the authority of the denomination. So it would be analogous to the Youth Pastor being the one promoting those sinful websites, while talking to people in the church lobby. In that case it might be time for the church Council to sit down with the Youth Pastor and go over Scriptural truth again.
Posted in: Dear CRCNA Member, Do You Believe Mark 8:36?
Nathan G says that "Care for eternal souls is always tied with care for their present state."
There is the root of the debate. How do we define care?
Some within the CRC say that "care" for others means we stop eating meat in North America, because raising cattle produces CO2, and CO2 causes natural disasters in Bangladesh. Thus the CRC uses ministry share dollars through denominational agencies like World Renew and the Office of Social Justice to support private and government action to reduce CO2.
That's a HUGE leap!
We ALL agree on "care." But that "care" must begin and end with the saving Gospel of Jesus, triumphing over the sin in our hearts. THAT should be the message of the institutional church.
It is wrong for one side to define "care" in debatable, non-Biblical ways, and then try to force others to accept their narrow definition of "care."
Posted in: Dear CRCNA Member, Do You Believe Mark 8:36?
Hi World Renew,
I just went to your website and bought a herd as a donation. (Normally I wouldn't talk about donations publicly, but since the invitation was public, I thought I would do so.) The disaster relief work of World Renew and similar organizations is incredibly important and praiseworthy. The concern I have with World Renew is the increasing emphasis on global warming and CO2 reduction, which is highly debatable from both a scientific and a Scriptural perspective.
As for ministry shares, it was my understanding that World Renew shares employees, office & general administrative expenses, and other resources with the CRC, and those items ARE funded by ministry shares. In other words, if the building, electricity, gas, water/sewer, insurance, H/R, phones, some of the staff, etc. are paid for with ministry share dollars, then it IS accurate to say ministry share dollars are going to World Renew.
And that's not a value judgment or a criticism. Merely an observation from an accountant (which is what I am by trade). May God bless you richly in your work...and take good care of the herd that I bought!
8 - )
Posted in: Dear CRCNA Member, Do You Believe Mark 8:36?
Hi Wendy,
Thanks for sharing that important information. It is true that ministry share dollars are not directly transferred into World Renew's bank account. That said, it would not be accurate to imply that World Renew is completely separate from, and receives no tangible benefits from, either the CRC or the ministry share system.
World Renew is an agency of the Christian Reformed Church (thus WR reports its activities to Synod every year). It receives tangible, indirect support from our denomination's ministry shares in ways that other agencies (i.e. Samaritan's Purse) do not.
I think it is also true that World Renew partners closely with the CRC Office of Social Justice in efforts to reduce and/or eliminate CO2 production, and considers it a moral duty to do so, correct?
Posted in: Dear CRCNA Member, Do You Believe Mark 8:36?
Thanks, Wendy, for engaging with me on this matter. I truly believe this type of dialogue is critical when approaching issues like global warming, or the question of good works/preaching the Word. And I also thank the folks at The Network for providing a space for this conversation to take place.
It is essential that we keep in mind the difference between "calls upon" and "requires." The quote you gave above (I believe it was from Synod 2012) "calls upon" CRC members, churches, etc. to reduce their CO2 emissions. But Synod does not and cannot require us to work to reduce CO2, because the issue of CO2 production is most definitely NOT a doctrinal or confessional matter. It is merely a suggestion by one Synod.
For example, if I personally continue to produce the same or more amount of CO2, can I come under the discipline of my church elders? Of course not. At most, it is a debatable matter of personal conscience, much like dancing or watching movies. And at its worst it is a matter that is actually causing harm to our church, by fomenting unnecessary division, moving resources away from the preaching of the Word, and giving people a sense that their good works are bringing about personal or corporate justification.
I would hope, then, that even if one believes the core tenants of global warming theory, that one would be very cautious in using CRC resources to promote such a highly debatable theory, lest such a focus reduce the effectiveness of our efforts to help people who don't have enough to eat.
So I am very glad for the good deeds being done by World Renew on behalf of the members of the CRC. I would caution all of us to remember that God saves those He calls, whether their physical circumstances have been improved by charitable works or not. Christians can shower an unbeliever with good works, but if that person is not called by God, those good works will only drive that person further away from God. Conversely, if a person is called by God unto salvation, that person will respond to the preaching of the Word even if no good works are ever shown to them. Would you agree?
Thus we do not do good works to win others to Christ. The Gospel of Jesus and the Spirit of God are the ONLY means by which sinners are saved. Instead, we do good works because God has commanded us to do so. And our primary focus remains the preaching of the Word. That was Izaak's main point.
Posted in: Dear CRCNA Member, Do You Believe Mark 8:36?
Amen! One of Satan's age-old tactics (I know, right...who believes in the existence of a literal Satan anymore), is to tempt the church into embracing the falsehood of works-based salvation and neglecting true Gospel salvation. There's a reason why so much of the climate change ideology, for example, is presented using religious terminology. "Climate witness" for example. The CRC must do a better job of preaching the true Gospel, rather than pandering to the world.
Posted in: Rev. Edwin Walhout's Parting Words and Works
Edwin Walhout's ideas are not new, not in line with CRC teaching, and not particularly interesting or robust.
Obviously, the worst example is his support for the idea that Jesus Christ is not divine. How can someone abandon this bedrock Truth of Christianity and still claim orthodoxy?
Walhout's over-reliance on modern "science" also leads him to faulty theology. In fact, some of the scientific theories he elevates above Scripture have already been abandoned and/or modified by secular scientists, demonstrating why the Church should never alter its teachings to fit the fickle scientific theories of the day.
Read his writings to gain an understanding of poor theology; read Scripture for Truth.
Posted in: Does Your Church Compost?
I should try to get my church to compost. I would take the material myself. I'm always greedy for more organic material for my garden. I compost at home, but my family doesn't generate much on our own. Only one 20 gallon garbage can per year.