For sure, Kathy. "Going rogue" can go either way. Personally, I would love to see the 4 delegates from Classis Grand Rapids East stand up at Synod and say "Our classis is wrong; Scripture is correct, and we need to abide by God's design for marriage and human sexuality." That would be wonderful!
Realistically, most delegates are going to be a mixture of representative of their church, and independent agent. The main thing is that they adhere closely to the Word of God and our denomination's teachings.
It would be wonderful if our denominational shepherds spoke clearly and powerfully, condemning sin and calling us to embrace the righteousness of Christ through the Holy Spirit.
Instead they seem to believe that obedience to God and love for neighbor are mutually exclusive. (Or rather, they claim the moral high ground of “love” for neighbor as an excuse to disobey God.)
Scripture is full of warnings to religious leaders who are supposed to follow God’s commands and teach them to their sheep, but instead they lead the sheep astray.
“My people have been lost sheep; their shepherds have led them astray and caused them to roam on the mountains.” (Jeremiah 50:6)
“Their vine comes from the vine of Sodom and from the fields of Gomorrah. Their grapes are filled with poison, and their clusters with bitterness.” (Deuteronomy 32:32-33)
“They strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that not one of them turns from their wickedness. They are like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.” (Jeremiah 23:14)
To Kevin, Mark, Reggie, and all the others who support changing the definition of marriage and changing the teachings of the CRC regarding sexual immorality, please consider this question...
Why not join one of the other Christian denominations that ALREADY teach your new-found beliefs?
I ask that question in love and grace. If your ideas change and no longer line up with your church's teachings, isn't it better to leave that church, and join another one that lines up with your new beliefs? Why do you need to force the original denomination to change her teachings to match your new ones?
Steven, the Scriptures I shared are not about Sodom, per se. They are about current religious leaders going along with the "wisdom" of the world, encouraging the sheep to go astray, and even celebrating sin.
It's a warning...when church leaders turn the flock away from God, God is not pleased.
Steven, you've made some assumptions that are completely wrong. But I love you as my neighbor anyway.
My question for you is this: If your views on sexual immorality have changed and no longer line up with the teachings of the CRC, why not graciously join another denomination that already DOES line up with your new viewpoint?
Thanks, Kevin. You covered a lot, but seemed to assume I meant an official split of the CRC. I didn't mean that. There are plenty of other churches and denominations that already exist, who line up with your views on sexual immorality. I was asking why you don't join one of those?
About 10 years ago I joined the CRC because I personally hold to the teachings of the CRC. If, for some reason, I found new views (say, for example, I came to believe in universal salvation), then I would join a different church that already teaches that. I would not demand that the CRC start teaching universal salvation.
It's like someone who hates baseball, who becomes a little league coach, and then demands that the kids stop playing baseball.
Hi Bill & Ginny. I am one of the Christians who voted for Trump. If we are going to be a nation of laws, then we must make sure all the election laws were properly followed, correct? From the Belgic Confession:
God wants the world to be governed by laws and policies so that human lawlessness may be restrained and that everything may be conducted in good order among human beings.
Let the process play out. Do not be whipped into a frenzy by the media. We as believers ought to remain calm and let the allegations of fraud be investigated based on their merits, rather than wishful thinking.
If the investigations reveal that all votes for Biden were legitimate, and the states certify those results, then Christians like me will absolutely speak up in favor of Trump exiting office and transitioning the Executive Branch peacefully to Biden. We are not being "silent" as you say. We are being respectful of our laws.
What's not clear to me is how the CRC can be "bound by the confessions" as you say, but not bound by the words in the confessions. How do you explain that?
If I hire you to mow my lawn, and I write a contract stating "Henry will mow my lawn every week during the summer," and you sign the contract, would it make sense for you to come back later and try to mow my deck? Or my living room? Or my vegetable garden? Because you say "We don't really know what the word 'lawn' means."
The Heidelberg catechism is clear that lying is a sin (Q & A 112). But it says nothing specifically about cheating on our taxes. So if a local church council decides to cheat on the church's payroll taxes, and also hold seminars at the church about how people can cheat on their taxes...well, Synod hasn't specifically said cheating on our taxes is a violation of our Confessions, so I guess there's nothing anybody could do about that. Right?
Please explain how we can remain faithful to the Confessions and to Scripture, while ignoring the words in the Confessions and Scripture, and pretending the words don't mean what they clearly mean?
Indeed. The best way to respond directly to Henry's "challenge" is to reject the premise of his challenge. His premise is that the CRC may not discipline anyone for promoting sinfulness, unless Synod has specifically named that particular sub-category of sin as worthy of church discipline. And/or that any sin for which Synod has issued "pastoral advice" is now off the table as one which deserves disciplinary action. As if pastoral advice and confessional status are somehow mutually exclusive, de facto.
Again, Henry admits that Scripture is clear...gay sex is part of the general category of sexual immorality. He even admits that the historical Church has always viewed it that way.
But he says the CRC in 2020 may not claim it as a confessional stance because no Synod has specifically itemized gay sex as part of sexual immorality.
But where is the premise supported that Synod must specifically itemize each sub-category of broader sins in order for confessional status to flow from the broader category to the more specific instances?
I am currently serving as a deacon at my local CRC church. Let's say I start sharing my idea that God is going to save ALL human beings, even those who deny Christ. I bring it up at Council meetings. I promote it during my deacon visits. I post all kinds of things on social media about it.
Are you saying I should not expect or accept any discipline from my fellow office-bearers for that?
Posted in: Talking About Human Sexuality With Love
For sure, Kathy. "Going rogue" can go either way. Personally, I would love to see the 4 delegates from Classis Grand Rapids East stand up at Synod and say "Our classis is wrong; Scripture is correct, and we need to abide by God's design for marriage and human sexuality." That would be wonderful!
Realistically, most delegates are going to be a mixture of representative of their church, and independent agent. The main thing is that they adhere closely to the Word of God and our denomination's teachings.
Posted in: Talking About Human Sexuality With Love
It would be wonderful if our denominational shepherds spoke clearly and powerfully, condemning sin and calling us to embrace the righteousness of Christ through the Holy Spirit.
Instead they seem to believe that obedience to God and love for neighbor are mutually exclusive. (Or rather, they claim the moral high ground of “love” for neighbor as an excuse to disobey God.)
Scripture is full of warnings to religious leaders who are supposed to follow God’s commands and teach them to their sheep, but instead they lead the sheep astray.
“My people have been lost sheep; their shepherds have led them astray and caused them to roam on the mountains.” (Jeremiah 50:6)
“Their vine comes from the vine of Sodom and from the fields of Gomorrah. Their grapes are filled with poison, and their clusters with bitterness.” (Deuteronomy 32:32-33)
“They strengthen the hands of evildoers, so that not one of them turns from their wickedness. They are like Sodom to me; the people of Jerusalem are like Gomorrah.” (Jeremiah 23:14)
Posted in: Talking About Human Sexuality With Love
To Kevin, Mark, Reggie, and all the others who support changing the definition of marriage and changing the teachings of the CRC regarding sexual immorality, please consider this question...
Why not join one of the other Christian denominations that ALREADY teach your new-found beliefs?
I ask that question in love and grace. If your ideas change and no longer line up with your church's teachings, isn't it better to leave that church, and join another one that lines up with your new beliefs? Why do you need to force the original denomination to change her teachings to match your new ones?
Posted in: Talking About Human Sexuality With Love
Steven, the Scriptures I shared are not about Sodom, per se. They are about current religious leaders going along with the "wisdom" of the world, encouraging the sheep to go astray, and even celebrating sin.
It's a warning...when church leaders turn the flock away from God, God is not pleased.
Posted in: Talking About Human Sexuality With Love
Steven, you've made some assumptions that are completely wrong. But I love you as my neighbor anyway.
My question for you is this: If your views on sexual immorality have changed and no longer line up with the teachings of the CRC, why not graciously join another denomination that already DOES line up with your new viewpoint?
Posted in: Talking About Human Sexuality With Love
Thanks, Kevin. You covered a lot, but seemed to assume I meant an official split of the CRC. I didn't mean that. There are plenty of other churches and denominations that already exist, who line up with your views on sexual immorality. I was asking why you don't join one of those?
About 10 years ago I joined the CRC because I personally hold to the teachings of the CRC. If, for some reason, I found new views (say, for example, I came to believe in universal salvation), then I would join a different church that already teaches that. I would not demand that the CRC start teaching universal salvation.
It's like someone who hates baseball, who becomes a little league coach, and then demands that the kids stop playing baseball.
Posted in: Do Not Worry About Synod
Good words, and good advice! Thank you, Sean.
Posted in: One of the Most Political Acts Christians Can Do: Pray for President-Elect Biden
Hi Bill & Ginny. I am one of the Christians who voted for Trump. If we are going to be a nation of laws, then we must make sure all the election laws were properly followed, correct? From the Belgic Confession:
God wants the world to be governed by laws and policies
so that human lawlessness may be restrained
and that everything may be conducted in good order
among human beings.
Let the process play out. Do not be whipped into a frenzy by the media. We as believers ought to remain calm and let the allegations of fraud be investigated based on their merits, rather than wishful thinking.
If the investigations reveal that all votes for Biden were legitimate, and the states certify those results, then Christians like me will absolutely speak up in favor of Trump exiting office and transitioning the Executive Branch peacefully to Biden. We are not being "silent" as you say. We are being respectful of our laws.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
It's a matter of ORIGINAL INTENT, right?
Did the authors of the confessions consider homosexual acts to be unchaste and sexually immoral?
It seems that Henry's response is "Yes, but...we don't need to enforce it because that might cause some people to leave the denomination."
Huh? That's a very odd response.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
What's not clear to me is how the CRC can be "bound by the confessions" as you say, but not bound by the words in the confessions. How do you explain that?
If I hire you to mow my lawn, and I write a contract stating "Henry will mow my lawn every week during the summer," and you sign the contract, would it make sense for you to come back later and try to mow my deck? Or my living room? Or my vegetable garden? Because you say "We don't really know what the word 'lawn' means."
The Heidelberg catechism is clear that lying is a sin (Q & A 112). But it says nothing specifically about cheating on our taxes. So if a local church council decides to cheat on the church's payroll taxes, and also hold seminars at the church about how people can cheat on their taxes...well, Synod hasn't specifically said cheating on our taxes is a violation of our Confessions, so I guess there's nothing anybody could do about that. Right?
Please explain how we can remain faithful to the Confessions and to Scripture, while ignoring the words in the Confessions and Scripture, and pretending the words don't mean what they clearly mean?
Posted in: Status Confessionis
Indeed. The best way to respond directly to Henry's "challenge" is to reject the premise of his challenge. His premise is that the CRC may not discipline anyone for promoting sinfulness, unless Synod has specifically named that particular sub-category of sin as worthy of church discipline. And/or that any sin for which Synod has issued "pastoral advice" is now off the table as one which deserves disciplinary action. As if pastoral advice and confessional status are somehow mutually exclusive, de facto.
Again, Henry admits that Scripture is clear...gay sex is part of the general category of sexual immorality. He even admits that the historical Church has always viewed it that way.
But he says the CRC in 2020 may not claim it as a confessional stance because no Synod has specifically itemized gay sex as part of sexual immorality.
But where is the premise supported that Synod must specifically itemize each sub-category of broader sins in order for confessional status to flow from the broader category to the more specific instances?
Posted in: Status Confessionis
I am currently serving as a deacon at my local CRC church. Let's say I start sharing my idea that God is going to save ALL human beings, even those who deny Christ. I bring it up at Council meetings. I promote it during my deacon visits. I post all kinds of things on social media about it.
Are you saying I should not expect or accept any discipline from my fellow office-bearers for that?