Douglas, I don't think there is really the space between a "doctrine" and a "confessional interpretation" that you seem to be implying that there is. Basically, anyone could in theory try to deny any doctrine contained in the confessions, and claim it is not binding if they wished. Of course, the arbiter of such a claim in the CRC is our Synod, who is the one body that can solve such a debate, by making their "confessional interpretation," which settles the matter of what is or isn't a doctrine/what we all must believe/confess/teach.
Douglas, if you object to "doctrine" and "confessional interpretation" being lumped together, I wonder how you would propose the two should function separately within a denomination? We can say "Scripture says....." but then a Jehovah's Witness may say "Scripture says....." Now we may have two competing and contradictory claims, and so, as individuals, we could theoretically take either side. At that point, there is no "pure" external "doctrine" that one could appeal to, which would be universally binding. But, as a denomination, we do not just throw our hands up every time there are competing claims of what God's Word says, or on some other matter. Instead, in the CRCNA, Synod is the body that has been given the authority to deliberate and weigh such claims, and settle disputes for us when needed. Synod can say, 1. That the matter is not really important and that any belief or thinking goes. 2. That it is substantive, but that there can be disagreements on a matter. Or 3. That in the CRC, reading God's Word from our confessional understanding, there is only one correct answer to a particular, substantive matter, and make that understanding universally binding within our denomination (ex. Kinism in 2019).
If we say a matter is so, based on "Scripture," to some extent, we are saying that any other Christian denomination that disagrees is probably in great error (ex. Unitarian versus Trinitarian). If we say it is based on the "confessions," we are saying that other Christians might understand a matter another way, but with our pattern of approaching God's Word, this is the practice we hold ourselves to (ex. believer vs. covenantal baptism). If we say something is based on "church order," we are saying that there is a process and a way of being that we have mutually agreed to, and one can not just break covenant or that social contract as they see fit (ex. a church can't just ordain a person as a Minister of the Word, independent of the process and requirements we have agreed upon in the CRC). These are some of the natural and necessary levels of authority that people need to submit to, if we are to work together effectively/be one body.
Diane, I also have watched the last three Synods closely (even serving as a delegate in 2023), but I have no recollection of any delegate standing on the floor at Synod, and saying "finally get the rot out," as you have stated. As all of the deliberations are available on the CRCNA YouTube channel, can you please point me to the session and time stamp where such a claim was made???
Thanks for your diligent review of Synod Diane, and for sharing what you now remembered. I ended up watching all of Synod 2024 in bed on pain meds, so it seemed possible that it was a comment I had just missed, but I really thought if that had been the case, that I likely would have seen it repeated and amplified other places as well.
Interesting thoughts Justin. Personally, I oppose executive sessions, as much as possible, because I think transparency and having the courage of one’s convictions are high values to pursue.
Yet, while I believe it generally should be avoided, I recognize there are reasons and places where confidentiality and sensitivity are more important, and thus some Executive sessions are just unavoidable.
So, would it help if Synod 2024 had all of its big discussions behind closed doors? Synod 2022 used a halfway measure of expelling the gallery for part of their deliberations, and I’m not sure it was much better than Synod 2023? So, I guess I would be willing to consider it, but with 196 delegates already involved, I’m unsure it would change much of anything?
Another thought on this, when were you a delegate to Synod last Justin? Serving last year, I personally did not feel that the gallery or the live stream impacted anything I said or did at Synod. I was only focused on those that were speaking and voting, and discerning together.
Chatting about this with a another pastor friend, he confessed that his first time at Synod, the fact that it was being Live Streamed did increase his nervousness a little, as a first time delegate. However, that was prior 2020. That was before all pastors became "TV Evangelists" due to Covid. That was before we all started live streaming every single service. I wonder if it being live streamed is effecting the delegates as much post 2020 as it did for those who it was their first time being broadcast digitally? (And, to be fair, even if all of the pastors are used to it, that original pre-2020 level of anxiousness could be present for our Elder and Deacon delegates, as most of them still aren't participating in live streams regularly???)
While not as involved as what Chad shared above, I too run through the Heidelberg in generally 5 classes, that each focus on a section of the Catechism, as well one big theme question for the class. At the end, I ask them to write a letter of testimony, written as a prayer to the Lord, that touches on 4 specific topics. Below is my general pattern:
Lesson 1
How would you tell your faith story?
What is wrong with humanity? (Heidelberg Q&A 1-11) (I read all in class/they do not read these ahead of our first class [but the catechism reading is their homework for subsequent classes])
Lesson 2
What Jesus has done for you?
How are we delivered? (Heidelberg Q&A 12-64) (I read, 12-19, 21, 60-64 in class)
Lesson 3
What happens at Church?
What is the Church? (Heidelberg Q&A 65-85) (I read 65-68, 72, 75, 81, 83-85 in class)
Lesson 4
What has changed and is changing in your life?
How should we live? (Heidelberg Q&A 86-115) (I read 86, 91, 94, 96, 99, 103, 104, 105, 108-115 in class)
At a meeting of the Elders or Council you will read your prayer. Instructions: Write out a prayer to God, to be read out loud, that 1. Declares who He is to you, 2. Confesses why you need Jesus, 3. Gives thanks for how He has brought you to this place, and 4. Gives thanks for God's Word, and an example of how a portion of that has been used in your life.
Thanks for the comment Doug. I'm unsure that disciplining behind closed doors / in executive session, encourages anyone to sin in this way. But, I agree that it is likely used too often. We have such a high value on privacy, and individual rights, that it undoubtedly hurts our ability to work together as a body. In church discipline, names should be named, and those that are guilty of sin should be publicly shamed, as a warning to others. We pretend that it is out of love for the sinner, that we don't want to create a barrier for their return. But when we do so, we deny our own doctrine, that repentance is a supernatural gift from God, and if and when it is given, it will easily overcome the barrier of public shame. Even in our discipline, we can have a form of Godliness, but be denying the power there of.
Hi Eric, thanks for your comment and challenge. Honestly, I was not intentionally trying to make any such broad statement, to infer that most are getting it wrong. But, as Professor Murray said, we often only hear about the failures, and so that could certainly lead to the appearance that churches fail to act when confronted with these issues. Also, I think Doug's comment above, regarding our tendency to handle all discipline behind closed doors, also plays a roll here. So, if the churches handling it well all do so in secret, and the churches that fail are the only ones we hear of, it is understandable that things might appear on a surface level, different than what is actually taking place in practice. But I was not trying to make any such charge, just make the case that all of our churches should read and consider what Professor Murray wrote.
Hi Jane, I'm glad to hear that the article was a blessing to you.
As to the "public shame" comment, I think we are saying the same thing. Doug was talking about how we deal with sin behind closed doors, and one of the reasons for that is to avoid shaming the offender. But when we do so, I would argue that it is not healthier for the sinner, nor does it serve as the deterrent to others that the case should be (increasing their certainty that they too would be caught / exposed, if they fall into a similar sin). Yes, care for the victim may be a valid reason to maintain secrecy in some situations, and so it must be dealt with on a case by case basis. But I would agree with Doug, that we likely default to private proceedings too often.
As for the "doctrine," I was just generally referencing the Calvinist/Reformed understanding of salvation, namely that we are not able to save ourselves, and that we rely upon the work of God, granting repentance, as He draws us onto Himself. Such salvation is supernatural in nature, and will cross any earthly barrier, even shame and hard feelings from the past, to restore a sinner to God and His people.
Posted in: Guidance on the Meaning of “Affirming the Confessions”
Douglas, I don't think there is really the space between a "doctrine" and a "confessional interpretation" that you seem to be implying that there is. Basically, anyone could in theory try to deny any doctrine contained in the confessions, and claim it is not binding if they wished. Of course, the arbiter of such a claim in the CRC is our Synod, who is the one body that can solve such a debate, by making their "confessional interpretation," which settles the matter of what is or isn't a doctrine/what we all must believe/confess/teach.
Posted in: Guidance on the Meaning of “Affirming the Confessions”
Douglas, if you object to "doctrine" and "confessional interpretation" being lumped together, I wonder how you would propose the two should function separately within a denomination? We can say "Scripture says....." but then a Jehovah's Witness may say "Scripture says....." Now we may have two competing and contradictory claims, and so, as individuals, we could theoretically take either side. At that point, there is no "pure" external "doctrine" that one could appeal to, which would be universally binding. But, as a denomination, we do not just throw our hands up every time there are competing claims of what God's Word says, or on some other matter. Instead, in the CRCNA, Synod is the body that has been given the authority to deliberate and weigh such claims, and settle disputes for us when needed. Synod can say, 1. That the matter is not really important and that any belief or thinking goes. 2. That it is substantive, but that there can be disagreements on a matter. Or 3. That in the CRC, reading God's Word from our confessional understanding, there is only one correct answer to a particular, substantive matter, and make that understanding universally binding within our denomination (ex. Kinism in 2019).
If we say a matter is so, based on "Scripture," to some extent, we are saying that any other Christian denomination that disagrees is probably in great error (ex. Unitarian versus Trinitarian). If we say it is based on the "confessions," we are saying that other Christians might understand a matter another way, but with our pattern of approaching God's Word, this is the practice we hold ourselves to (ex. believer vs. covenantal baptism). If we say something is based on "church order," we are saying that there is a process and a way of being that we have mutually agreed to, and one can not just break covenant or that social contract as they see fit (ex. a church can't just ordain a person as a Minister of the Word, independent of the process and requirements we have agreed upon in the CRC). These are some of the natural and necessary levels of authority that people need to submit to, if we are to work together effectively/be one body.
Posted in: Guidance on the Meaning of “Affirming the Confessions”
Diane, I also have watched the last three Synods closely (even serving as a delegate in 2023), but I have no recollection of any delegate standing on the floor at Synod, and saying "finally get the rot out," as you have stated. As all of the deliberations are available on the CRCNA YouTube channel, can you please point me to the session and time stamp where such a claim was made???
Posted in: Guidance on the Meaning of “Affirming the Confessions”
Thanks for your diligent review of Synod Diane, and for sharing what you now remembered. I ended up watching all of Synod 2024 in bed on pain meds, so it seemed possible that it was a comment I had just missed, but I really thought if that had been the case, that I likely would have seen it repeated and amplified other places as well.
Posted in: Crucial Conversations at Synod, Part II
Interesting thoughts Justin. Personally, I oppose executive sessions, as much as possible, because I think transparency and having the courage of one’s convictions are high values to pursue.
Yet, while I believe it generally should be avoided, I recognize there are reasons and places where confidentiality and sensitivity are more important, and thus some Executive sessions are just unavoidable.
So, would it help if Synod 2024 had all of its big discussions behind closed doors? Synod 2022 used a halfway measure of expelling the gallery for part of their deliberations, and I’m not sure it was much better than Synod 2023? So, I guess I would be willing to consider it, but with 196 delegates already involved, I’m unsure it would change much of anything?
Posted in: Crucial Conversations at Synod, Part II
Another thought on this, when were you a delegate to Synod last Justin? Serving last year, I personally did not feel that the gallery or the live stream impacted anything I said or did at Synod. I was only focused on those that were speaking and voting, and discerning together.
Chatting about this with a another pastor friend, he confessed that his first time at Synod, the fact that it was being Live Streamed did increase his nervousness a little, as a first time delegate. However, that was prior 2020. That was before all pastors became "TV Evangelists" due to Covid. That was before we all started live streaming every single service. I wonder if it being live streamed is effecting the delegates as much post 2020 as it did for those who it was their first time being broadcast digitally? (And, to be fair, even if all of the pastors are used to it, that original pre-2020 level of anxiousness could be present for our Elder and Deacon delegates, as most of them still aren't participating in live streams regularly???)
Posted in: How Do Your Profession of Faith and New Member Classes Work?
While not as involved as what Chad shared above, I too run through the Heidelberg in generally 5 classes, that each focus on a section of the Catechism, as well one big theme question for the class. At the end, I ask them to write a letter of testimony, written as a prayer to the Lord, that touches on 4 specific topics. Below is my general pattern:
Lesson 1
How would you tell your faith story?
What is wrong with humanity? (Heidelberg Q&A 1-11) (I read all in class/they do not read these ahead of our first class [but the catechism reading is their homework for subsequent classes])
Lesson 2
What Jesus has done for you?
How are we delivered? (Heidelberg Q&A 12-64) (I read, 12-19, 21, 60-64 in class)
Lesson 3
What happens at Church?
What is the Church? (Heidelberg Q&A 65-85) (I read 65-68, 72, 75, 81, 83-85 in class)
Lesson 4
What has changed and is changing in your life?
How should we live? (Heidelberg Q&A 86-115) (I read 86, 91, 94, 96, 99, 103, 104, 105, 108-115 in class)
Lesson 5
Where can you serve?
Why Pray? (Heidelberg Q&A 116-129) (read 116, 117)
At a meeting of the Elders or Council you will read your prayer. Instructions: Write out a prayer to God, to be read out loud, that 1. Declares who He is to you, 2. Confesses why you need Jesus, 3. Gives thanks for how He has brought you to this place, and 4. Gives thanks for God's Word, and an example of how a portion of that has been used in your life.
Posted in: Overture and Communication to Synod Process
Good reminder, but a little late, as the agenda deadline for my Classis was before Christmas. ;-)
But thanks for compiling this info, and I'm sure I will refer back to these guidelines in the future!
Posted in: Dear CRCNA Member, Do You Believe Mark 8:36?
A healthy call back to making the Gospel our central driving focus. Thanks Izaak!
Posted in: Why Do Churches Cover Up Sin?
Thanks for the comment Doug. I'm unsure that disciplining behind closed doors / in executive session, encourages anyone to sin in this way. But, I agree that it is likely used too often. We have such a high value on privacy, and individual rights, that it undoubtedly hurts our ability to work together as a body. In church discipline, names should be named, and those that are guilty of sin should be publicly shamed, as a warning to others. We pretend that it is out of love for the sinner, that we don't want to create a barrier for their return. But when we do so, we deny our own doctrine, that repentance is a supernatural gift from God, and if and when it is given, it will easily overcome the barrier of public shame. Even in our discipline, we can have a form of Godliness, but be denying the power there of.
Posted in: Why Do Churches Cover Up Sin?
Hi Eric, thanks for your comment and challenge. Honestly, I was not intentionally trying to make any such broad statement, to infer that most are getting it wrong. But, as Professor Murray said, we often only hear about the failures, and so that could certainly lead to the appearance that churches fail to act when confronted with these issues. Also, I think Doug's comment above, regarding our tendency to handle all discipline behind closed doors, also plays a roll here. So, if the churches handling it well all do so in secret, and the churches that fail are the only ones we hear of, it is understandable that things might appear on a surface level, different than what is actually taking place in practice. But I was not trying to make any such charge, just make the case that all of our churches should read and consider what Professor Murray wrote.
Posted in: Why Do Churches Cover Up Sin?
Hi Jane, I'm glad to hear that the article was a blessing to you.
As to the "public shame" comment, I think we are saying the same thing. Doug was talking about how we deal with sin behind closed doors, and one of the reasons for that is to avoid shaming the offender. But when we do so, I would argue that it is not healthier for the sinner, nor does it serve as the deterrent to others that the case should be (increasing their certainty that they too would be caught / exposed, if they fall into a similar sin). Yes, care for the victim may be a valid reason to maintain secrecy in some situations, and so it must be dealt with on a case by case basis. But I would agree with Doug, that we likely default to private proceedings too often.
As for the "doctrine," I was just generally referencing the Calvinist/Reformed understanding of salvation, namely that we are not able to save ourselves, and that we rely upon the work of God, granting repentance, as He draws us onto Himself. Such salvation is supernatural in nature, and will cross any earthly barrier, even shame and hard feelings from the past, to restore a sinner to God and His people.