Colin Vander Ploeg

Good comments!  If a confession is an historically embedded "story telling," and the CRC is no longer a "North & West Europian story" church, perhaps rather than adopting the story/confession of South Africa, we should be writing our own confession as North American Reformed Christians facing attacks of hedonism, materialism, individualism, naturalism and fundamentalism and in such a document tell our story of striving to be "in but not of" this society. 

If we are to adopt the Belhar because we need to include stories others in the Reformed faith globally, then we really should not stop with the Belhar but adopt all such stories/statments from others.  But that would not be very helpful.  It seems to me, that the call from South Africa to stand with them in their story requires that we respond with our own story in our context based on the same gospel message of reconcilliation and salvation/healing in Christ. 

At least the Belhar context is more relevant to the CRC story today than the other three creeds if you compare only on the basis of history.  All confessional statements' content has relevance of course as far as it faithfully reflects the teachings of Scripture.  But the Belhar is still not our (the CRC's) story. 

I wonder if part of the hesitancy in embracing the Belhar as a confession arises out of the fact that, though we share some similar historical situations, the Belhar is not born out of our story but theirs.  Our situation is not identical with theirs.  Our situation today in North America is also not that of the European 16th & 17th centuries, hense the decline in appropriateness of our present confessions (especially for example, the Canons of Dort, the way it is worded and fails to communicate in today's ecumenical context) 

Can we write a new confession for today's CRC, perhaps synthesizing some of the best relevance of the old three and some of the Belhar as well?  When you explore other denominational web sites, they often have a somewhat contemporary write up for "what we believe" rather than simply referencing their historical documents.  Maybe add a few more articles to the Belgic confession about wealth and power and the selfless calling of discipleship to Jesus or something.  And what about re-writing the Canons of Dort to more appropriately place us in the family of denominations rather than simply denounce other parts of the Body of Christ.  Just a thought.

Colin

One of the casualties in the ever expanding denominational structures and ministries has been the local church's ability and/or willingness to staff adequately on the local level to reach their own communities with the transforming gospel of Christ.  I have heard again and again, that we (local congregation) have to pay 100% or our denominational ministry shares before we can consider funding and staffing a new local ministry oportunity.  I have even sat in a congregational meeting to decide to daughter a congregation or not, and heard people speak against that because that congregation did not pay 100% of the denominational ministry causes.  Of course that approach is short sighted as all congregations could pay all their ministry shares and keep shrinking locally until that 100% amounts to nothing.  I tend to agree that the growing blending of the local institutional church's core calling with the glocal calling of Christians in all "spheres" is creating array of difficulties as to oversight and accountability.  What would it look like if a local church discipled people to know and follow Christ and then encouraged them to get behind some Christian citizen organizations where ever they find them, even giving them a recommended list.  Also if my historical memory is correct, having Calvin College as our CRC College, is not Kuyperian, but it is Calvinist as in Geneva in his day.

I have been delegated to one synod (2009) and there were certainly discussions of financial and structural matters that were miles over my head (and I read the agenda) , and yet we were called on to vote on these matters.  The banner article may be saying there are crucial matter at stake, however, I am afraid only a few in the CRC actually grasp what the incremental changes entail at any one synod.  Keep learning I guess.  This over extention (if that is what it is) also is precluding the necessary time needed to actually deliberate among a large group of new acquaintances called delegates.  Lord have mercy and guide Synod!

Colin.

Daniel I think you got it right, we are reformed with respect to baptism and arminian with respect to Lord's Supper.  We baptize infants without their knowlege of what is going on but on the covenantal inclusion via parents of faith, but when it comes to communion, we require discernable faith before one can be accepted.  If a child growing up in a congregation has been welcomed into the Body of Christ as a part  of it via the only rite of entrance into the Body given in Scripture, then why do we not allow them to grow up participating in the communal meal of the Body of believers.  I think we get hung up on the 1Corinthians 11 passage that by having infants receive communion, those infants will eat and drink judgment on themselves,  a poor understanding of the passage but one driven by our long standing wording of the older forms of Lord's Supper.  As if the Lord was concerned with those who didn't quite get all the theology of the Lord's Supper rather than with those who flaunted the reality of community and unity in the Body of Christ.  Perhaps our poor performance as a denomination in retaining our youth into their adult years in the CRC has something to do with our making worldly distinctions among ourselves as in Corinth, ours being excluding children and youth from the Lord's Supper.  And as some "fell asleep" among that congregation as a sign of the discipline of the Lord, so we lose our youth as a result of our "failure to discern the Body" in our context.  I welcome a greater inclusiveness of all the members of Christ at the table of the Lord.  Otherwise we might as well wait with baptism until we discern faith as well. 

Good comments!  We also wrestle with this reality.  When I came to this congregation, there were about 65 names of persons that hadn't been a part of the worship or ministry of this congregation for a few years or more (some many more).  After exploring the lapsing criteria of dealing with memberships, we worked through many of the names.  A few were contacted, mostly out of courtesy because someone still had contact with them.  Some simply were lapsed as we had no idea where they were (and some, who they were!).  Now we have about 2 dozen inactive members attached to this congregation.  And that list changes every year. 

Personally, I try to be proactive when people are moving out of our congregation's range geographically.  I ask them before and shortly after they have moved about finding a church home.  If there is no reply, we send them a double registered letter asking them the question again and for a repsonse in the next 6 weeks and being clear that if they are moving back here, we would love to have them rejoin this congregation.  (The double registered means they sign for the letter and we get a note back from the post office saying it was actually received by them).  If after the 6 weeks, we receive no response, we lapse their names off our membership list.  We do not make a big public display of this with announcements but simply make sure the care/elder teams are aware of this change. 

My experience with those locally who have ceased to attend, and especially younger generations (I am 46), is that by the time we have this conversation with them, they have already assumed they are no longer members at our congregation.  In other words, their sense of having left (because they did and are often attending elsewhere) goes hand in hand with their ceasing to be members.  Meanwhile our Council is busy trying to decide what to do about their membership.  We have had at least a half dozen in recent years, who in their minds ceased to be members well ahead of our Council's question to them of what they intend to do with their membership.  I have even had conversations with non-attending members (young adults) who talk about this church here as the church "they used to be a member of years ago" or "their parent's church".  Seems some of our members move on long before we realize they have. 

For me the paper work is not really a problem.  I don't think we should make official membership in a congregation so onorous a process to change that it smacks of getting stuck in a cell phone contract or some gym membership that simply won't let you go.  I would like some more fluid view of membership in a congregation that allows for efficient in and out of believers between churches when that is their desire, regardless of the receiving church's membership practices.  We have a menonite congregation in town which has a worshiping population on a weekend of about 3,000 but of which about 1,000 are officially members there. They are wrestling with what does that mean for them?

I think the closer we can tie the "local church membership" to "being a believer in and disciple of Christ" at its most basic levels, the more sense it makes that if someone cuts themselves off from the ministry and worship of the Body, then they cease to be members.  Right now,it can almost sound like our paper memberships are something apart from being in the Body of Christ, as if there is a Body of Christ that believers are a part of, and then, there is also this church institution thing that some of the Body (perhaps most) will become a part of as well.  I'm not sure the two are so separate.

My advice would be, we stop pretending certain people are members of the Body in a certain local when they are not.  It is a bit of matter of integrity.  Can you still minister to those who no longer are members.  Certainly, however, at present, a lot of our oversight ministry focuses only on members and as soon as a member ceases to be a member, we drop them.  Maybe we need a parish perspective on the local worshipping body rather than an institutional membership perspective.  Who are we called to care for in our locale?  Who are we repsonsible for?  Membership could be joining in the carrying out this ministry. 

And some residue of that old membership papers practice is that many folk think there is a filing cabinet in the church with a folder with their names on it and in that folder are "membership papers" akin to "baptismal certificates" or something.  No such thing exists here.  It is simply the list we keep of who we feel we have oversight of.  Or, another way of saying that, is the list of who has submitted themselves to the mutual oversight (led by the elders) in this congregation.  When people stop attending and being connected with this congregation, we try to determine the nature of what they mean by that.  Are they leaving Christ and His Body (an admonition and discipline reality), or switching places where they will submit their lives to the care and admonition of fellow believers in Christ along with those servants set part to oversee that ministry (then just acknowledge their decision and bless them in their new place of ministry and move on)? 

I wonder if the urgency/energy/pressure to adopt the Belhar is out of a sense of guilt that we still have racist attitudes and actions present among our congregations and denominational structures?  Or that we seem to not be making a big enough dent in the culture concerning racism or speaking loud enough for people to hear us in our and other cultures world wide?  Adopting the Belhar, we can then point to something we have done in response perhaps?  Just a wondering ... 

It seems to me that the problem trying to be addressed by ethnic quotas is that the competencies and/or screening processes are generally geared to anglo-saxon ethnicity, and, perhaps, also along particular lines of white, western approaches to business.  In other words, if the criteria for hiring someone are closely tied predominantly to a single ethnicity's way of approaching such work, then using ethnic quotas simply gives the appearance of multi-ethnicity, rather than a truely multi-ethnic approach to how we do the leadership work in the first place.   If the above is the problem, then let's work on that, so that competent individuals, regardless of ethnicity, can adequately serve in positions available.  And then the hiring process needs to be done blind to ethnicity.  Perhaps we have some things to learn yet about the balance of productivity and relationships in our denominational work environment.  Could other cultures teach us some thing about this? Of course they can.  To get to such actual multi-ethnic leadership, we may need to be intentional about bringing such voices together to try this out and make the changes they present themselves.  The quota route by itself seems to be either condescending on the one hand and racist against persons who are more highly qualified for a position, but get passed over finally because they are the wrong ethnicity.  There is also the difficult situation of being church in a culture that persists in bringing larger numbers of one ethnicity into high ranking leadership postions, so that other ethnic groups seldom get the experience or mentoring needed to excell at the higher levels.  What are we, denominationally, doing to respond to that? 

Colin.

Here are my reflections on the round table discussions that were brought to our area.  They were really not discussions of pros and cons but a presentation in favour of adopting it.  Everyone I talked with afterward said these were "Belhar promotional events" and not a discussion that helped them a whole lot.  This was especially true for those who had already been wrestling with this document.  In our church context I have not come across anyone who disagrees with the basic thrust of the document as to unity and justice and the sin of racism and whatnot, but many are wondering about making it a confessional statment.  There are a few lines in the document that would need re-wording or clarification.  And it does not strike people to be of the same type as our confessions, even if they can't put their finger on it.  Most feel it reads like Our World Belongs to God. 

Since these presentatons came across as promotional events I wonder if  the congregants get the feeling they aren't really being asked their input but are being sold something that they can buy into or not.  Perhaps that fuels the lack of discussion on this document.  Add to that the reality that it is difficult to speak against such a document without others pigeon holing you as a racist or simply negative to all things new.  The default them becomes to remain silent. 

My concern in such a context is that if this becomes a confessional standard in the CRC, and those serving in ecclesiastical office have in silence disagreed with the document, they will simply carry on and ignore it completely.  (We are after all, west of the Rockies in Canada and there is a tendency to ignore what happens out east in the Grand Rapids anyway.)  I worry that a document promoting unity will result in either further indifference to the Confessions or simply more disunity. 

I was a delegate to the "plague" Synod of 2009 (because we all got sick :) where this was first approved by Synod to propose as a new confession.  There was much pressuring going on emotionally to be in favour of it and not a whole lot of discussion of the problem parts of the document.  It seemed at times that the primary discussion was how not to offend anyone and how this document will keep us from sinning futher in specific areas, neither or which were very helpful discussions.  I am glad for our practice of giving time between Synods to let the churches discuss and wrestle with this document.  I am not so sure the denominational leaders have done a very helpful job as yet in letting people actually tussle with their difficulties, at least not in the presentations I have seen or others from my congregation have attended. 

Our Council has had some preliminary discussions of Belhar and we are planning to discuss it at our Spring congregational meeting in some way.  My intention is to make sure the pros and cons are laid out as clearly as possible and then encourage people to seek the Lord in prayer for a time for discernment and a decision. 

Interesting reading all these comments.  A few more reflections on adopting the Belhar ... at the 2009 Synod discussions on this it was pointed out that one of the reasons that we should adopt it is that it has been given to us as a gift and we can't say no to a gift.  It is certainly rude to turn down a well meaning gift.  However, since a confession of faith seems to me to have to be something that comes from the person or congregation or denomination confessing it, then this document should be re-written to reflect our particular situation in the CRC perhaps reflecting such things as mentioned in the previous comments.  Our present confessions arose in the context of the congregations dealing with those situations.  I think it would be different if we were coming out of a similar aparthied situation here or something, but our issues, though some racially driven, are not the same context.  I guess I wonder why in the CRC, who can produce some very helpful study reports, cannot accept the Belhar as impetus to write a new confession of faith that would incorporate the good themes highlighted by the Belhar.  I wonder why, if we need to adopt the Belhar out of respect for ecumenical relations (a theme repeated at the Synod discussions) that we do not also adopt the other main Reformed confessions: The Westminster Confession and Catechism, the Scots Confession, the Second Helvetic Confession, the Theological Declaration of Barmen; the Gallic Confession and so forth?  It seems first up would be the Westminster confession.  I suspect that one of the reasons we do not is because themes in those other Reformed Confessions are already covered in the Three Forms of Unity.  And if the Belhar has new themes from Scripture that are missing in our confessions some how, then let's write a new confession or apend what is missing to our present ones.  I can see no reason to not simply add a few more articles to the Belgic Confession that address the  justice and shalom issues present in Scripture.  I have difficulty with the unwillingness of our denomination to update its confessions.  The reason has been that we should not mess with an historical document.  However that approach also lends creedance to the reality that their meaningfulness is also tied to a receeding historical era, one that we are less and less connected to as we enter a post-Christendom context.  And with that unwillingness to update a document once accepted still in place, adopting the Belhar will mean that once in place, we can't do anything about its flaws or need of a further edit etc.  I still would rather accept it, with some initial editing for clarification, as a second Testimony or position statement.  We seem way more comfortable updating our testimony than our confession, so let's put it there for now. 

Colin

Great article Phil.  It brings to mind for me the difference between approaching this as a technical problem to be solved or an adaptive challenge to learn some new things about.  We have also seen the same thing developing over the past few years.  It seems the shift has come on fairly quickly of late.  We are tracking some who are simply moving to other churches or are in crisis and other things, but that does not account for the up to a third of the congregation that is missing on any given Sunday.  We have noticed rythms in the year around school time (some parts of the school year are busier than others), long weekends, the ebb and flow of snowbirds, even the local weather makes an impact on this.  There seems to be a broader connectedness of people with others and they more readily go to friends and neighbor gatherings when there is an event of any kind on Sundays. 

I wonder how this connects with what I perceive as a growing lonliness in our communities.  People seem hungry for fellowship.  I also wonder if our experience of fellowship during worship is an adequate experience to even be recongnized as a balm for loneliness.  Of course we are being trained in this culture to answer emptiness with surface stuff, entertainment, experiences that stimulate us or give us pleasure.  Meeting with God in worship doesn't seem to fit that bill very well.  I think of our traditional sancturary set up (long narrow an all looking straight forward) based on the hearing of the Word.  This does not lend itself to a sense of meeting with the Lord and His Body, but more of indiduals listening to a sermon.  My sense is that people are desiring real connection with God and real connection with one another.  But this requires some new (yet old) things to learn about openness, confession, forgiveness, vulnerabililty and safety with others.  Anyway, I think I might share your article with my Council as well as others have mentioned doing.  Thank you Spirit for using Phil in this way. 

Colin.

Thanks all!  Your comments and questions need to be asked by us pastors way before retirement.  Authentic living and being who you really are needs to be the journey into ministry and through it.  I agree, this needs a lot more thought and discussion and practice in the CRC context.  It seems to be one of the qualities the middle and younger generations in our churches are longing for in their leaders (not just pastors either). 

Colin.

I wonder if there is a deeper underlying issue in the call process, namely, a lack of knowledge/experience for congregations and Councils and pastors in what discering the Lord's will actually looks like.  Seems it takes time and a lot of prayer, not just private prayer but corporate prayer (and not congregational prayer style but some seeking prayer approach or some crying out prayer approach).  

Seeking a perfect fit sounds more like seeking what we will be most comfortable with ... not too prophetic.  This needs more discussion for sure.  The conditions in and around ministry for churches and pastors have changed and are changing.  What is our core concern in all this?  Happiness?  Holiness (i.e faithfulness to the call of the Kingdom of God)? Status quo?  Maybe instead of a perfect fit, we need to see if pastor and congregation can travel together for a while along the pathway the Lord is leading them.  Are the two parties headed in the same direction even if the exact route is not identical?  Just some thoughts.

Lord grant us all grace!  

Colin.

Thanks Scott for this foray into today's social communication realities.  One of those realities of having people using their smart phones during a service is the ease at which disctraction sets in.  Seldom does one check facebook or tweet for just one specific thing.  There is always the few more moments of quickly seeing what else is going on out there.  I would rather have the phones all left in the purses and jackets and turned off and have a more interactive portion of the message (perhaps the congregational prayer time could be about application in lives of the message just proclaimed, seeking from the Spirit "so, what now, Lord").  Seeing how texting, tweeting, facebooking, all cuts off in-person communication while one is actually doing that, I think the medium tends toward isolating each other at a time that God's people need to be together in the Word.  Seems today, honest and deep in-person conversation is becoming quite counter-cultural.  

Before and after the preaching event has intriguing possibilities, but during proclamation, where the Body meets with her Lord?  He's just not going to tweet back but meet people directly.  Social media in some sense is another mask we wear these days when we interact with others through it.  

That being said, what if during the service of reconciliation, we had opportunity for people to tweet or otherwise in real time write in confessions of sins they need healing from, and then we pray for forgiveness and healing for those things righ then?  Just a thought.

Colin.