Skip to main content

While a legitimate asylum seeker is slightly different from an immigrant, there is still a legal process for entering the nation that they must submit to. As such, I see no problem considering asylum, a sub section of legal immigration, and don't see any reason, in Dan's article, to think otherwise.

Daniel Z, I was there. The speakers were not overly clear drawing the boundary lines around "monogamous" relationships. Yes, they did say celebrate same sex marriage, and so that was primarily the context that they were working in (and I think Dan W's article gives that general impression as well). But, they were not specific, no discussions of remaining pure, and saving sex for marriage or anything of the like. So, sure one could take what Dan wrote to a much broader scale than their official position. But Dan accurately portrays what was said there, with almost no qualifiers in that meeting.

Ministers are just teaching Elders within the church. Thus one of the first levels of accountability, should be through the plurality of the Elders that lead the local congregation. We need to actively reduce the distinction between lay elders and ministers, as Scripture knows of no such distinction.

This post does not accurately portray what is being discussed in Jerusalem. The only properties being proposed for taxation are for profit holdings by the Roman Catholic and Orthodox Church (not places of worship, and no Protestant churches in Jerusalem have any such holdings that I am aware of). Such properties would never be considered tax free in the US or Canada, but somehow they had been allowed to do this until now in Jerusalem. Justice must be based on facts.

This is a factually incorrect understanding of the confessional difficulty gravamen. As Michael said, it's purpose is to work out ones questions, and wrestle through matters, not a Presbyterian form of standing exception to a confessional point!

For a better understanding of what gravamen are, and how they have been historically used in our denomination, check out this article:  https://www.abideproject.org/articles/synod-faq-or-fiction

Yes, there is the expectation that Elders/Officebearers should not be novices, and so with the vows they make, there is certainly the expectation for them to fully and heartily both believe and defend our doctrines. But, where have you seen this being applied to members in our churches? The Gravamen discussion that Synod ran out of time on, addressed officebearers only, not the general membership of the church?

Thank you Eric for addressing this reality. These calls of Unity do ring hollow, when we consider other denominations that we have varying degrees of fellowship with. Unless we still are holding on to the "Wooden Shoes," our unity needs to be based something much deeper than just our ethnicity/ancestry/history. The CRC (rightly) has recognized and rejoiced in the way that our denomination is expanding in different ethnic communities. That expansion is not based on their past generations attending Calvin University, nor Grandparents or Aunts and Uncles that served as officebearers in the CRC. Instead, it is our understanding of God's Word, and how we live it out. That is the Unity of being part of the CRCNA!

Eric, I appreciate your challenge here. If violations of the 7th Commandment "aren't a salvation issue," then is the whole second table of the law a free for all, just a you do you, take it or leave it proposition? Is any sin a serious and salvific matter?

We want to hear from you.

Connect to The Network and add your own question, blog, resource, or job.

Add Your Post