Trevor Mouw
Theology Teacher in Iowa
Master's Degree in Bible & Theology from Sioux Falls Seminary
Seminarian at Calvin Theological Seminary
We want to hear from you.
Connect to The Network and add your own question, blog, resource, or job.
Add Your Post
Posted in: Status Confessionis
It has been such a discouragement to me in this thread, and other threads, to see older men in my denomination work so hard, through synodical wording or procedural loopholes, to try to make space for sin.
:(
But the most hurtful irony is the false insinuations above that the traditionalists and conservatives, like me, should be viewed as the cause of any resulting church splits!
It is not the conservatives who have been working for decades to change the beliefs and positions of our denomination! It is those who have "progressed" away from the Biblical teachings on homosexuality and the church that are at fault for any split, regardless of whether the split is liberals leaving because the CRCNA holds fast to Biblical teaching or whether it's the conservatives leaving because the CRCNA changes to allow committed LGBT+ members to church leadership. Conservatives don't want to split. We want to remain in a denomination that stands firmly on the Word of God despite whatever pressures come from the secular culture around us.
As Cedric outlined above, there are three possible scenarios, as I see it:
Option A. Disregarding the committee's recommendations and affirming LGBT+ in the CRC.
Option B. Endorse the committee's recommendations, including the suggestion of status confessionis.
Option C. Endorse the committee's recommendations, but decline the suggestion of status confessionis and instead let the report stand as more "pastoral advice" and allows each classis or church to determine how they wish to hand LGBT+ in their churches.
Henry (and others), you seem to be under the mistaken assumption that while option A will create a split in which conservative churches leave the denomination, and while option B will create a split where liberal churches leave, option C will allow for unity in diversity to be maintained for all parties.
This is false.
I promise you that if Synod chooses either option A or option C, the resulting split will be equally large.
We're not stupid. We saw with Women in Office that "option C" inevitably leads toward "option A".
To "punt" this issue is to kill the CRC.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
What Eric said.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
Indeed. I had actually wanted to use the word "elder", but didn't want to cause confusion with the church office.
Posted in: "Censorship" on The Network
Would you mind explaining why this piece, which I originally tried to post to the Network, was not permitted to be posted?
https://reformedeveryday.com/featured-article/f/jesus-the-sinner
I both strongly denounce racism, allow for racism in "systems" and only critique a single yet crucial aspect of CRT.
The only explanation Staci gave me was to point to this article. I fail to see how this would be oppressive to people of color. It's a central tenet of all Christian Theology.
Posted in: "Censorship" on The Network
Whoa whoa.
Both Mark and Tim Keller are white, and thus ineligible to speak on this topic by the new standards implied in the original article here!
Please AT LEAST show consistency by deleting Mark's comment here.
(Or even better, Kristen, admit your obvious mistake and allow the posts and voices of all CRCNA people to be heard...)
Posted in: "Censorship" on The Network
Kristen, please respond how my post differed from Mark's comment.
Would you mind explaining why this piece, which I originally tried to post to the Network, was not permitted to be posted?
https://reformedeveryday.com/featured-article/f/jesus-the-sinner
I both strongly denounce racism, allow for racism in "systems" and only critique a single yet crucial aspect of CRT.
The only explanation Staci gave me was to point to this article. I fail to see how this would be oppressive to people of color. It's a central tenet of all Christian Theology.
Posted in: "Censorship" on The Network
"Posts to the Network that deny that whites have privileges in our society that people of color do not enjoy, denying that whites sit atop a racial hierarchy that our society has established, denying that people of color face challenges and outright danger that we whites do even have to think about"
Who is doing this? Sure not any of the men commenting to this original post. All here recognize the evils of racism!
I don't deny white privilege in certain areas. And I don't deny other types of privilege that have nothing to do with skin color. But it's all context-specific, and not inherently sinful, though at times through willful action it can absolutely lead to sin in individual people. To say it is inherently sinful has massive theological implications. Read my article linked above that was banned from being posted here on the Network (which Kristen will explain why hopefully at some point in these comments...) "Jesus the Sinner".
You're unnecessarily censoring conservative comments because of fictional boogeymen that you imagine. No one is denying that black people have painful felt-experiences! We should mourn with those who mourn.
But we do not ignore or suppress Biblical truth, no matter what. Mark, Kristen, Staci, and any others... please stop suppressing Biblical truth.
Christian Arabs don't feel pain when we declare that Islam leads to damnation.
Christian people of color won't complain when we isolate and condemn any part of Critical Theory that is counter to Biblical truth!
Posted in: "Censorship" on The Network
Also, Mark, you did not reply to Dan's specific question:
"Your new policy seems to be saying that anyone who wishes to join in any discussions must first acknowledge and agree with certain aspects of Critical Theory, as a sort of admission fee to the conversation. Would you also censor the viewpoints of people of color who refuse to make those initial acknowledgements?"
Posted in: Same-Sex Marriage Resources and Church Order History for CRCNA
Well done. Thank you for this!
Praying fervently that the CRCNA not only continues to follow scripture by upholding the traditional one-man/one-woman stance on marriage as shown in this document, but that they do so for the last time and make it confessional!
Thanks, again!
Posted in: Debunking 5 Myths About The Network
I chuckle at points 1 and 5 being "myths" as my submitted post sits in limbo for the past 13 days...
I'd love for you guys to either approve my post or give me the reason why not.
Thanks.
Posted in: Debunking 5 Myths About The Network
Thanks, Staci!
Thanks for reaching out.
Still waiting on the reasoning why my post was rejected though. Would love to know which Community Standard I disobeyed.
I thought it was a good, thoughtful post.
Posted in: Synod 2022 Sexuality Vote?
Benjamin already answered, but no, they don't release individual votes.
In the Acts of Synod, you can find the names of those who registered official No votes. But that's not all the no votes. And it doesn't list yes votes either.
It's probably for the best that they don't, if you ask me!
I, myself, proudly cast my Yes vote in support of the HSR and the Bible's understanding of "unchastity".