Thanks for this comment, Sarah! It's interesting that we often bristle at God's sovereignty, but it can actually provide great comfort knowing we're meant to learn through periods of doubt, as you put it.
This is very refreshing. I read a very balanced and pastoral account of the suffering in the author's heartland and heart. Thank you, Christian, for being a thinking Christian who is able to rightly divide the truth, steering clear of political ideologies and sticking close to Christ.
James, your disdain for US policy belies a misunderstanding of current events and a failure to read the post itself. As Christian said, the fact that 8 million people left Venezuela indicates that the leadership is causing serious distress to the people. Furthermore, Maduro is charged with narco-terrorism and sending tons of cocaine to the US, which is a punishable offense. Both of these crimes make the US responsible for removing him, as an act of justice for both Americans and Venezuelans. If you're against violence, then think about the violence that is occurring. Many were harmed and killed in ousting Maduro. Yes. Yet, many more were actively being harmed, disposed, and killed with him in office. A reformed conception of the 6th commandment requires actions that will reduce harm, even if those actions are harmful themselves. You'd be a bad parent if you didn't forcibly, that is, violently resist a predator trying to harm your children. Your "violence" in that scenario is required if you are to be a good father. It is the same in this case. One must see the full picture to have an adequate estimation of the ethics involved here.
Another concrete example (which may be discussed in later posts) is the ordination of officebearers. Those who are called to preach and administer the sacraments are not "self-starters" who create the call for themselves. Rather, denominations collectively recognize God's call upon them; or, denominations discern that God has not called them, and spares the Church much pain. In an age when everyone has a megaphone and credibility is difficult to discern, God's ecclesiology blesses us with a standard (albeit imperfect due to our sin) that helps us verify trustworthy, biblical leadership. That flows out into the ability to exercise church discipline, without which a church cannot be a church! This is why it is imperative for denominations to have shared theological agreements, hence confessionalism.
A church building is a visible depiction of the Church of God. As such, it should reflect who He is, not who we are. The Church as a whole has no specific nationality as it is comprised of every nation. So, it would be a misrepresentation to adorn God's church with uniquely American symbols. Further, it would be a limiting of God's majesty to tie His rule to America since this country is a small piece of His Kingdom.
Relatedly, if a foreigner from another country were to walk in (which happens somewhat regularly) they might be given the impression that this is the American church and they therefore need to find an Indian, Chinese, Mexican church, etc.
If it helps, below are the questions that were submitted to our Council to persuade them to remove the flags:
Is the Church of Christ universal, or is it bound to a nation like Israel in the OT? If we highlight the fact that this is the “US Church,” are we setting ourselves apart from the “UK Church” or the “Chinese Church”? Since Christ “broke down in His flesh the dividing wall of hostility” (Eph 2:14; cf. 3:6) between Jews and Gentiles, do you think they would have flown their respective flags in Church where they were supposed to be radically unified?
Though we should honor those who have made the ultimate sacrifice for our freedom, is Church—the place where we honor Christ’s sacrifice—the place to do it? Whose death do we honor in church, God’s or man’s? If we honor both, what message does that send regarding the significance of Christ’s death? Why do we need to honor people in church? Is this man’s house or God’s? (1 Timothy 2:5) Should anything in the church point to what we do? Or should everything in the church point to what God does?
What does an outsider think when they see the US flag? Won’t the flag signal to a non-citizen that they need to look for the “Mexican” church or the “Indian” church?
We have more in common with non-American Christians (like Pakistanis) than the most patriotic atheist.
It is rather convoluted, isn't it? This was not written very well. In regards to the misuse of the Word, could you explain how the article does that explicitly?
I’ll try to focus on some highlights and respond where I have the most pressing question, or think a response would be most suitable to all the wonderful comments you’ve provided. In regards to this post, two things stand out.
First, you said, “I believe tradition of man/elders has elevated authority, power, titles, hierarchy, degrees, institutions at the expense of the Spirit & ALL the gifts especially prophecy (for both men & women), at the expense of the one another commands/principle, at the expense of the priesthood of all believers, at the expense of Jesus saying we (men & women) are not to "lord it over"/exercise authority over in the Body of Christ.”
To which I mostly agree! I think the Church, whatever the gender of the officer, has the unfortunate capacity to stifle the work of the body. I’ve also noticed that much of this stifling is bottom-up. That is, many people are content just being spectators and not, to use John Wimber’s phrase, “doing the stuff.” But, our difference lies here: I think the solution to this problem is a proper understanding of the priesthood of all believers. I think the CRC has endorsed a “dominee” understanding of pastors as if they are the only people allowed to pray, speak about the gospel, or teach. This is unfortunate and unbiblical. From my perspective, women should be empowered to teach women and children, share the gospel, pray for everyone in person or when absent, publicly share what God is doing in their lives, and yes, even share a prophetic word in submission to the elders if the woman (or man!) feels led. In sum, yes there’s stifling but I think the solution is in broadening our understanding of what lay Christians can do, not broadening our understanding of the pastorate. Ironically, from my perspective, the latter merely continues the unhelpful trend of intimating that only pastors, whether male or female, “can do the stuff.”
Second, you say, “Rob mentions that being pragmatic is secondary to God's word... I was thinking about this & I had to laugh... God forming Eve from Adam is very pragmatic! the only time God said "it is not good..." during creation is after Adam was created, when Adam was alone... the only time God said "very good" is after He created Eve! Problem solved! We are mandated to steward/rule over creation together, not over each other!”
I think your point here is that God is pragmatic? I’m not quite sure what you were intending with the reference to God creating Adam and Eve as it relates to the question at hand. Perhaps you could flesh that out a bit?
On the other hand, I noticed that your dichotomy in the last sentence is this: we either rule together or over each other (“We are mandated to steward/rule over creation together, not over each other!”). Unfortunately, this is a caricature of complementarianism that I hear often. A CRC pastor recently told me the linchpin in his becoming an egalitarian was his belief that Genesis teaches men are women are equal. I said I wholeheartedly agree!
No complementarian believes men and women aren’t equal in their inherent value, or that men should “rule over” women. Rather, complementarians believe that women should willingly submit to the delegated male authority of the church. If women reject this leadership, they are free to do so. The picture is of willing submission and loving leadership, not unwilling submission and ruling over. Furthermore, **women do participate in the creation mandate to rule creation.** We are all prophets, priests, and kings. Women rule over creation with men, but they do not lead men, according to the comp. view. This is analogous to our position with God—we rule over creation as we follow God. For women in the church, it’s the same relationship. Hence, Paul says, “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman…” (1 Cor 11:3).
Posted in: Good Doubt Friday
Thanks for this comment, Sarah! It's interesting that we often bristle at God's sovereignty, but it can actually provide great comfort knowing we're meant to learn through periods of doubt, as you put it.
Posted in: A Pastoral Statement on Venezuela, Justice, and Truth
This is very refreshing. I read a very balanced and pastoral account of the suffering in the author's heartland and heart. Thank you, Christian, for being a thinking Christian who is able to rightly divide the truth, steering clear of political ideologies and sticking close to Christ.
Posted in: A Pastoral Statement on Venezuela, Justice, and Truth
James, your disdain for US policy belies a misunderstanding of current events and a failure to read the post itself. As Christian said, the fact that 8 million people left Venezuela indicates that the leadership is causing serious distress to the people. Furthermore, Maduro is charged with narco-terrorism and sending tons of cocaine to the US, which is a punishable offense. Both of these crimes make the US responsible for removing him, as an act of justice for both Americans and Venezuelans. If you're against violence, then think about the violence that is occurring. Many were harmed and killed in ousting Maduro. Yes. Yet, many more were actively being harmed, disposed, and killed with him in office. A reformed conception of the 6th commandment requires actions that will reduce harm, even if those actions are harmful themselves. You'd be a bad parent if you didn't forcibly, that is, violently resist a predator trying to harm your children. Your "violence" in that scenario is required if you are to be a good father. It is the same in this case. One must see the full picture to have an adequate estimation of the ethics involved here.
Posted in: How Many CRC Churches Still Teach Catechism?
1st CRC of Artesia, CA teaches it year-round, open to all. We have Adult Sunday School class then Catechism class every Sunday.
Posted in: Gaslight Village
Amen! What a cogent and timely message.
Posted in: Why a Denomination?
Another concrete example (which may be discussed in later posts) is the ordination of officebearers. Those who are called to preach and administer the sacraments are not "self-starters" who create the call for themselves. Rather, denominations collectively recognize God's call upon them; or, denominations discern that God has not called them, and spares the Church much pain. In an age when everyone has a megaphone and credibility is difficult to discern, God's ecclesiology blesses us with a standard (albeit imperfect due to our sin) that helps us verify trustworthy, biblical leadership. That flows out into the ability to exercise church discipline, without which a church cannot be a church! This is why it is imperative for denominations to have shared theological agreements, hence confessionalism.
Posted in: Bible Verses for Parenting
This is very helpful, thank you Sarah!
Posted in: What Are Your Policies Concerning Flags in Church and Worship Spaces?
We removed the US flag for two reasons:
If it helps, below are the questions that were submitted to our Council to persuade them to remove the flags:
Posted in: The Beauty of Limited Atonement
It is rather convoluted, isn't it? This was not written very well. In regards to the misuse of the Word, could you explain how the article does that explicitly?
Posted in: The Beauty of Limited Atonement
Thank you, Jonathan!
Posted in: The Beauty of Limited Atonement
Well said; thank you, Aaron.
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Dear Bev,
I’ll try to focus on some highlights and respond where I have the most pressing question, or think a response would be most suitable to all the wonderful comments you’ve provided. In regards to this post, two things stand out.
First, you said, “I believe tradition of man/elders has elevated authority, power, titles, hierarchy, degrees, institutions at the expense of the Spirit & ALL the gifts especially prophecy (for both men & women), at the expense of the one another commands/principle, at the expense of the priesthood of all believers, at the expense of Jesus saying we (men & women) are not to "lord it over"/exercise authority over in the Body of Christ.”
To which I mostly agree! I think the Church, whatever the gender of the officer, has the unfortunate capacity to stifle the work of the body. I’ve also noticed that much of this stifling is bottom-up. That is, many people are content just being spectators and not, to use John Wimber’s phrase, “doing the stuff.” But, our difference lies here: I think the solution to this problem is a proper understanding of the priesthood of all believers. I think the CRC has endorsed a “dominee” understanding of pastors as if they are the only people allowed to pray, speak about the gospel, or teach. This is unfortunate and unbiblical. From my perspective, women should be empowered to teach women and children, share the gospel, pray for everyone in person or when absent, publicly share what God is doing in their lives, and yes, even share a prophetic word in submission to the elders if the woman (or man!) feels led. In sum, yes there’s stifling but I think the solution is in broadening our understanding of what lay Christians can do, not broadening our understanding of the pastorate. Ironically, from my perspective, the latter merely continues the unhelpful trend of intimating that only pastors, whether male or female, “can do the stuff.”
Second, you say, “Rob mentions that being pragmatic is secondary to God's word... I was thinking about this & I had to laugh... God forming Eve from Adam is very pragmatic! the only time God said "it is not good..." during creation is after Adam was created, when Adam was alone... the only time God said "very good" is after He created Eve! Problem solved! We are mandated to steward/rule over creation together, not over each other!”
I think your point here is that God is pragmatic? I’m not quite sure what you were intending with the reference to God creating Adam and Eve as it relates to the question at hand. Perhaps you could flesh that out a bit?
On the other hand, I noticed that your dichotomy in the last sentence is this: we either rule together or over each other (“We are mandated to steward/rule over creation together, not over each other!”). Unfortunately, this is a caricature of complementarianism that I hear often. A CRC pastor recently told me the linchpin in his becoming an egalitarian was his belief that Genesis teaches men are women are equal. I said I wholeheartedly agree!
No complementarian believes men and women aren’t equal in their inherent value, or that men should “rule over” women. Rather, complementarians believe that women should willingly submit to the delegated male authority of the church. If women reject this leadership, they are free to do so. The picture is of willing submission and loving leadership, not unwilling submission and ruling over. Furthermore, **women do participate in the creation mandate to rule creation.** We are all prophets, priests, and kings. Women rule over creation with men, but they do not lead men, according to the comp. view. This is analogous to our position with God—we rule over creation as we follow God. For women in the church, it’s the same relationship. Hence, Paul says, “But I want you to understand that Christ is the head of every man, and the man is the head of a woman…” (1 Cor 11:3).