Dan Winiarski

Hi Steven, you were incorrect in assuming that I don't know any LGBTQ people who are heartbroken and struggle every day with their temptations. You were incorrect in assuming that because I still agree with the Scriptural guidelines on human sexuality, marriage, and gender, that I would be unwilling to help an injured person by the side of the road (I have literally and figuratively helped the injured person). I don't want to belabor this point, as I truly do love you as my neighbor.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you said you were "born in the CRC and have just as much right" as anyone else to stay here and demand the church change its teachings. In truth, we must be willing to admit when it is WE who have changed (not God's Word), and then have the courage to find others who believe the same way we do now. That's what I did when I joined the CRC 10 years ago.

If an issue is both fundamental and mutually exclusive (as is the case with God's holy design for marriage, human sexuality, and gender), then it is both destructive and untenable to stay together.

I appreciate those questions. I know it's conventional wisdom to think we should treat people according to whatever label they have (gay, straight, white, black, left, right).

But my life experience has been that it's best to simply treat everyone as a distinct, unique individual. Love every individual, no matter what. Encourage every individual to submit, in obedience, to God's Word. Treat every individual with enough respect to speak honestly to them, not pandering or pulling punches because they might get "offended."

When you treat everyone as an individual, rather than as a member of some collectivist sub-group, then you're treating them the way God treats them.

And when we do that, the fruit will follow.

Hi Nick. Our CRC Church Order literally states that delegates to Synod "represent" the churches in their Classis.

Someone at our Classis meeting (Classis Georgetown) a few weeks ago expressed the same opinion you did. I read, word for word, from our Church Order to show otherwise.

Article 45 "The Synod" states "Synod is the assembly representing the churches of all the classes."

Galen, you seem to be trying to split the meaning here, and argue that while Synod as a whole body represents the churches, the individual delegates do not represent anyone. If that is your assertion, so be it. Such an interpretation seems silly. It would be like saying that Congress represents the States, but individual members of Congress do not represent anyone. Or that attendees at an awards ceremony (like the Oscars) represent the collective body of work of whatever is being considered for awards (like all movies made), but that the individual attendees (like the actors and producers) don't represent any specific work.

There is a mistaken idea floating around that a representative body cannot also be deliberative, that somehow those two things are mutually-exclusive. That is obviously not correct. An assembly like Synod is both representative of the churches, and deliberative in nature.

I think the reason people put forth this false narrative is that they are hoping to sway individual delegates to "go rogue" if you will, and act far more revisionist and Progressive than their constituent churches would like them to.

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?

Agreed.

And if a deacon (such as at Neland Ave CRC) promotes the belief that sexual immorality should be affirmed and celebrated within the church, in conflict with our confessions, they would no longer be affirming our Covenant for Officebearers. They would need to file a confessional difficulty gravamen and ask their council and the broader assemblies to allow them to continue to promote sexual immorality.

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.