Michael Vander Laan

Keith, I don't see this working. The eventual result is that the same people are in leadership over and over. Someone could be president of synod 5+ times in a row under your suggestion. This would not be good. For the sake of continuity, we would sacrifice diversity. I would much rather see new, less experienced folks, who brought a variety of new perspectives.

Our congregation is doing a summer sermon series called "Heart songs of God's People." We invited members of the congregation to submit to a pastor their favorite worship song and why (the "why" being the important part). We are asking everyone who submitted to share on a Sunday morning why a song is their "heart song." This is venue for members to give a theological reflection or a personal testimony. Then the sermon will be on a Bible passage that the song references. We are doing this partly because Sept-May we have two morning services, one traditional, one contemporary, and we would like to pull these groups together rather than having effectively two separate congregations. We hope that this will shift the emphasis away from style and towards God.

The reason I mention this in this thread is because I don't think it is in our best interest to attempt to create a "core set." People have their "heart songs", the songs of their old age, for many different reasons. I think worship leaders and pastors have a responsibility to find out what they are. I realize that this makes the possibilities pretty endless, but I think the diversity can be helpful and enjoyable for the church.

While I agree with that the list risks alienation of those need to hear, there is another side of the coin.

The list also brings attention to those who think they have it all together that they do not. Our denomination, classes, and most congregations have Safe Church teams. We think we have it all together. We have great resources on the website and we are working to increase awareness. But we don't have it all together.

The CRC, like any group of humans, struggles with pride. It manifests itself in many different ways and in many different areas, including Safe Church teams. We are proud that we have the structures and policies and so on. But the reality is that we still mess up, regularly even. And the consequences are life-changing and sometimes even catastrophic.  

The best response to an article like this is not deconstructing the article. The best response is confession. Confession (and forgiveness) is the foundation on which healing, justice, and a relationship of working together can be built on.

In an effort to address this as you have framed it (though I think Bev's post hit the nail on the head)...

• Do classis seating women delegates irrevocably undermine the effective ministry of a) churches in that classis who do not hold a Biblical conviction that women ought to serve in their congregations or b) the classis as a whole? (Of a individual congregation, no. The council makes its own choices and classis has little say in the matter unless there is a discipline issue. A pro-wico classis won't and can't force a anti-wico congregation to have female officers. Of classis, only in so far as delegates from those congregations would participate in an examination of a female candidate (which they don't have to). If there are other situations that are affected, I'm having a hard time seeing it.)
• Conversely, does the self-imposed exile of such congregations from their classis irrevocably undermine the effective ministry of a) the classis as a whole or b) the congregations there represented? (Yes and Yes. Calling this a self-imposed exile is a nice way of saying it. A mini-schism is probably a better description. Classis (and the denomination) is a gathering of congregations that covenant to work together for the forwarding of the gospel. Withdrawl is breaking that covenant. The question is whether WICO is worth splitting over. The tension behind these overtures is that these congregations don't seem to have settled on the answer to that question. There is enough people who say 'yes, this is worth splitting over' that they don't participate at classis. But there is also enough people who say 'no' that they are doing amazing church order gymnastics just to stay in the CRCNA. As Bev noted, the result has been an illogical division of 'we won't participate in classis because of WICO, but we will participate in the denomination inspite of WICO.' Another point of damage to the classis/denomination is the disrespect to the offices. I see this self-imposed exile as a violation of Belgic Confession Article 31 (last paragraph). While these congregations disagree with WICO, they most certainly may not disrespect officebearers. They must honor and respect officebearers because of the offices they hold and work that they do. There is a stunning disregard to all officebearers in the classis by these two congregations by their absence. Proper honor and respect would say, "I disagree with the decision we have made as a classis, but I will respect it because I respect the authority of the officebearers of classis who made this decision." Regardless of the gender of the officebear, the office must be honored and respected.)
• IF the case is made that this is a significant problem, THEN is the proposed refugee/affinity classis the best solution? (No. The underlying logic needs to be cleaned up. Namely, is this worth splitting over. If it is, let's bless these congregations as they go to the URC or the like. If it is not, they need to honor the covenant they have with other CRC church in their classis and the denomination as a whole. If this logic isn't cleaned up, a whole classis will be formed and live by it. The logical conclusion to this senario is that the whole classis will leave the CRC because of women officebearers at denominational gatherings. The big question for me is whether this synod will be so bold in a) confronting the breach of convenant and doctrine, and b) directing the congregations to go through the leaving the CRC process or reengage in ministry in their classis (depending on their response to whether this is worth splitting over).) 

A few thoughts.

1) IN CHRIST ALONE is definitely a newer staple in church music, but it definitely has long term staying power. Any hymnal being published these days would have a pretty big hole in it if they don't include it. And that's not because the theology isn't dealt with many other songs, but because it is deeply attached to people's hearts. For this reason alone, the PCUSA editorial committee made quite the misstep.

2) Wrath is an important emotion, especially in regards to punishment of sin. Anyone who has suffered a great injustice and deeply desires justice understands the wrath against the evil that caused the injustice (and how right that emotion is). Relatedly, it is also important as an emotion of God, especially given the Bible talks this way. If we give up on Biblical language, our theology will soon be given up too.

3) What does "The love of God was satisfied" mean? Really? Someone threw some nice sounding words in there, but theologically makes no sense (at least to me). When is God's love satisfied?

4) Artists have the rights to their work and deserve the respect to not have it changed by others (or at least without permission). Granted the PCUSA folks did ask, but changing lyrics is a pattern with hymnal editors. The results are generally less then spectacular. This would have been another example had the Gettys/Townend said ok.

Thanks for the thoughtful post, Greg!