Phillip Westra

My posting was made in 2014 based on a family who asked our church to loan them money. They stated they would not accept a gift. We gave them $600 and told them if they wanted to give back to the church, to contribute to our offerings and that could be their way of giving back. We helped them out at the time and this family moved out of state about a year later.

We do not have anything by way of written benevolence policy that gave us guidance or parameters to this inquiry. I suggested our deacons draft some but I think they want to remain as flexible as possible. Thank you to those who offered your input. This discussion seems to have gotten rebooted in light of COVID-19. I had almost forgotten all about this until people started commending again on it. I will leave it up if it is helpful to others, but I am no longer asking this question.

I am saddened by the polarization that happens on online forums like this. Discipline requires a process that would involve face to face communication and ample opportunities for those being accused of wrongdoing to explain themselves and change thier ways if the church calls them to that. I hear John suggesting this article warrants disciplinary action and wondering what others think about this. I do not believe invoking 1 Corinthians 13 calls us to withhold discipline from people who err in the Christian life and faith. Do you withold discipline from your children because you love them? No, we thoughfully and carefully discipline our children because we love them. Those who are ordained leaders in Christ's church take a vow to teach the truths of the Christian faith and ask others to hold them accountable. I hope my church loves the gospel and loves me enough to call correct me when I go wrong. I imagine the author and editor are with me in this. All that to say, please do not frame Christian discipline in terms of "unloving" or "fighting."

About the article itself: 1) The author frames the whole thing in a reading of history that is simply inaccurate. Purgatory, indulgences, relics, etc. did not form the "backbone of Christianity" 500 years ago. When these became too important, the Reformation happened. To put creation, sin and salvation (think Apostles Creed) on par with these is simply wrong. 2) Apart from the concluding blurb from a synodical report, Walhout fails to mention anything about how the church has already been wrestling with these issues for the past 150 years. This includes the various ways Genesis 1 has been interpreted well before Darwin came along, the numerous scholars who have described Adam and Eve as the representative head of the human race, and the work of scholars today in wrestling with these questions (i.e. books and articles by the Haarsmas at Calvin College). 3) This article lacks helpful distinctions, such as the difference between evolution and naturalism, which help us ask and answer the important questions. 4) He does suggest evolutionary theory calls for a reworking of doctrines like creation, sin and salvation. About sin, he says, "We will have to find a much better way of understanding what sin is, where it comes from, and what its consequences are. Theologians will have to find a new way of articulating a truly biblical doctrine of sin and what effect it has on us." In other words, evolutionary theory will enable theologians to be true to the Bible in our theological articulations. The implication being that now we will really understand the Bible. I think the problems in this are obvious. I am a bit floored that anyone in this forum might suggest that sin and salvaiton are not core doctrines of the Christian faith. 5) The author makes a prediction about the future, a prophetic claim, if you will. If history teaches us anything, it teaches us that we humans with our best sciences cannot predict the future. Unless Walhout received this from God himself (including being from Scripture), he should not put this forward as something that will inevitably happen. Being a false prophet is a serious matter in the Bible.

About editorial wisdom: I agree with the postings in this forum and the other in response to the article itself that publishing this article was an irresponsible editorial decision. I would suggest the reasons above as well as the need for the denominational news magazine which we all fund to edify and build up the church. What this article is essentially saying is that we are probably wrong about the truths of the Christian faith we have staked our lives on. If evolutionary theory gives us hope for getting the Bible right in the future, then evolutionary theory is really our hope. I have searched for what is positive about the choice of this article and the only thing I have found is the fact that it brings up the question. I will grant that, but why have an article that rasies a question and provides no helpful answers? We all know why we would never publish a once sentence article, "So what will our theologians do in light of the growing consensus among scientists that biological evolution is true?"

In conclusion, I would like to know how the Banner editorial staff makes decisions about what to and not to print. You can't be accountable if you don't have a standard, and everyone who works for a living is accountable to someone for doing a job effectively. Perhaps that would be a worth-while overture to synod next year. Let's establish some standards in writting before the diverse body of the CRC starts suggesting corrective actions based on differing indivual agendas. This article has brought more confusion than clarity about its subject matter. I hope the editor might see this and steer away from such unhelpful uses of paper and ink in the future. As far as Walhout goes, accountability must begin in his own congregation. I pray that his own church takes this opportunity to ask him what it is that he does believe and what it is that he stakes his life on? A follow-up in the Banner about what this retired minister does believe might give a counter-balance to the "let's question everything" tone of this one. Untimately, we care about the spiritual well-being of this man. We care that his personal conviction of sin has been met by the saving work of Christ and not simply that his lines in the sand are drawn exactly where we want them. Let's give this discussion thread that sort of charity.

I want to speak in favor of Zylstra's freedom to begin a discussion like this about church discipline in the forum. He posted a question and offered what I understand is his belief about what the the the church [CRC] ought to do through its disciplinary process. Those who say that we are not allowed to talk about such things on an open discussion forum and then defend the CRC's official news magazine's ability to say whatever people want to for the sake of "dialogue" are contradicting themselves. It seems to me that it should be the other way around--we ask our honest questions about anything on the Network but only publish what is edifying for the whole church in the Banner.

Discussion participants have sounded the "we must follow due disciplinary process" note over and over. I understant this as my previous posting indicated. I have no doubt that the person who initiated this discussion understands this too. The question remains what our churches should do in this process. Our congregations have read multiple articles by people who it seems should have been disciplined by their own congregations for teaching things that blatantly contradict with our Reformed doctrines and ethics. What are we supposed to do in response? Should our consistory write a letter to the consistory of the church who is responsible for this man's ministry credentials? Should we draft an overture to bring before classis? When the present process of discipline that begins at the congregational level does not seem to be functioning, what should the rest of the body [churches] do? This requires prayer and discernment, and this is what the consistory of the church I serve is currently praying and talking about.

We have read the report and are getting ourselves ready to discuss this at classis in a couple weeks.  I speak for most people in my church and classis when I say that we endorse sending deacons to participate in the work of synod.  That being said, this task force has included a number changes here that are problematic in my mind and I am surprised others are not discussing this further on the Network.  The report itself states that it "requires a major rethinking of how the CRC does ministry" (pg. 34). 

First, at the heart of church order changes is Article 25.c (pg. 21), the description of deacons' responsibilities.  We (my council and I) regret that the phrases "especially to those who belong to the community of believers" and "assure the unity of word and deed" will be removed.  It seems to me that it would harm the witness of the church greatly if my congregation were doing advocacy work for people we hardly knew while memnbers of our own congregation were nto being helped.  In an age when the church is accused of hypocrisy, it seems to be that deacons play an important role in reminding us to demonstrate our faith with some of our time, talents and treasures.  Furthermore, we think the phrase, "calling the members to be ambassadors of reconciliation in all areas of life" brings more confusion than clarity to the diaconate's work and God's kingdom. 

Second, we would not like to see the imperatives to "bring the gospel" and "lead them [people] into fellowship with Christ and his church" be replaced by the phrase "holistic mission" in Articles 73 and 74 (pgs. 26-27).  While the gospel and fellowship with Chirst should be inherent in this phrase, it has also been used to justify questionable activities in the world-wide church today and therefore not helpful as a clear guiding principle.  We would like to see a sentence stating what "holisic mision" is which includes the elements being removed.

Third, and most baffling to me personally, is the change in Article 77 (pg. 29).  Why would we include deacons in the work of synod and then remove synodical oversight and encouragement of our denominatoinal agencies, many which are diaconal in nature?  Am I missing something?  It seems to me that synod ought to have a say about the denominational ministryes what all our churches support.  We did not see how the guiding principles and changes in Articles 73-76 lend support to this move.

I would appreciate input from others.  Thanks!