Henry DeMoor

In the very same breath with the salutation or "pronouncement of blessing," Synod 2001 names the administration of the sacraments as an official act of ministry.  We've held that position from our beginnings as a denomination.

Article 55 of the Church Order says that the Lord's Supper shall be administered ... by a minister of the Word, a ministry associate, or, in the case of need, an ordained person who has received the approval of classis ...."  The Supplement indicates that "ordinarily the ordained person should be an elder."  As Synod 2001 put it, "no long-standing, organized congregation of Christians should be deprived of these liturgical acts simply because it cannot provide for the presence of an ordained minister or ... ministry associate."

There is no similar provision for elders to preach sermons, however.  Any council that wishes to have an elder preach a sermon must have that person examined by the classis and receive licensure to exhort even if the elder will only preach in his or her own church.

All this is written up in my Christian Reformed Church Order Commentary published by Faith Alive Resources.  Support our dear publishing arm, won't you?  [I do not receive royalties]  Great birthday present!

No, Henry, it is not permitted.  Article 53 says that even those who are licensed to exhort or otherwise given permission by elders to lead in worship (but not ordained) must "refrain from all official acts of ministry."  The greeting or salutation is considered to be such an official act.   This was recently confirmed by Synod 2001 when it said that "certain acts of ministry -- among them ... the pronouncement of blessings for the people, ... -- are part of the ministry of Christ to his followers and are entrusted to the church and, within the church, to its ordained leaders ...."  You may wish to read up on this in my new CR Church Order Commentary at both Article 53 and Article 22.

If an unordained person leads in worship, it would be entirely permissible for such a person to change the greeting to a prayer.  "May the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ, the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with us all."  It is then not a pronouncement from Christ to his people, but a prayer of the people to Christ.

I hope this helps you.

Yes, Paul, thanks.  That is exactly how this thread began.  My challenge on the church political dimension of the much larger issue.  Because, again, synod itself declares how authoritatively it speaks.  In the case of homosexuality, everything has been "pastoral advice."  Deliberately so.

Dan,

That is not my premise.

My premise is that no synod thus far in CRC history has insisted that officebearers at the local level apply discipline.

No, Dan, I'm not saying that at all.

If you believe and express the belief that all people are saved, your belief would be in conflict with our confessions, namely, the Canons of Dort (e.g. II, 6) and the Heidelberg Catechism (Q&A 20) and thus would no longer be affirming our Covenant for Officebearers.  The only exception would be for you to file a "confessional difficulty gravamen" and ask your council and the broader assemblies to allow you not to believe in limited atonement and be granted that privilege.  That request would almost certainly not get a positive response.  So if you persisted in this you would have to be suspended and/or deposed from office.

Yes, Dan, but only if a synod of the CRCNA has made this a confessional issue.  Currently it is a position that we have adopted and synod has called that "pastoral advice" to the churches.  So the signing of the Covenant for Officebearers by said deacon did not involve confessional status.  If, however, Synod 2021 were minded to interpret our confession by insisting that "unchastity" includes same gender sexual relations, that deacon might have to send such a confessional difficulty gravamen unless they are both chaste in their marriage.  And if that is sent, I doubt that the broader assemblies would grant the request.  In that case she would likely have to resign.

Josh,

It looks like we will need to agree on what "respecting" a decision means.  It does not mean obeying what a synod has declared.  If it did, our having a negative vote recorded means very little.  Let me give you an example out of my own past.  I was interviewed by Synod 1988 after the Calvin Seminary board nominated me to serve as an assistant professor of church polity.  The delegates already knew, by way of prior overtures and the public press, that I favored the nomination of women to serve as ordained officebearers.  So a number of delegates wondered how I could possibly hold that view and yet respect the synodical decisions not to allow it.  My response was that seminary students were adults and clever enough to be able to distinguish between what the CRC held as its position on the matter and my own views on it.  So in all the years I taught church polity I always presented what the CRC held and why, and I also presented what those who didn't agree with that position held and why so that said students could make up their own minds.  The same is true of synodical delegates who had their negative vote on a decision recorded.  They went back to their classis, reported on what synod decided (respectfully) and why they voted against it.  There's no problem with that in our system.  Of course, no synod allows a negative vote on a matter that is obviously a confessional issue.  Women in office, as Synod 1987 declared, was and is not a confessional issue.

As for Classis Toronto, I have enough awareness of their actions to know that not only did the council of that congregation respectfully differ on a matter that was at that point not a confessional issue, but that the council also held their belief so forcefully that it didn't leave much of a choice for classis to act as it did.  Those actions reflected a response to one council's approach.  There were many other councils that dealt pastorally with those who professed to be homosexual in orientation and sought to help them live with the synodical decisions of 1973.  Elders may even have differed with synod's position, but respecting synod's decisions means that they would be obliged to accurately report what its position was and is.

Everyone,

On this Thanksgiving weekend I want to express to all of you my gratitude for your insightful contributions responding to my "challenge."

I believe that what we need from synod now is clarity.  People differ on how we understand "pastoral advice."  Some say it's just a matter of allowing elders to do their own thing, even with a denominational "position" in place.  Others think it means that synod is asking us to minister in a specific way, i.e., we are not to go outside of the bounds that synodical decisions have put in place, and we should be telling those with homosexual orientation to be chaste.  But we also need synod to affirm our church political history.  As a matter of fact, nobody has thus far demonstrated that synod has wanted to raise this issue to a confessional status, i.e., it has never specifically indicated what in today's world and culture the word "chaste" in the Heidelberg Catechism actually condemns.

So what I believe should happen is that Synod 2021 should consider a declaration that with the increasing pressure of our culture we believe that sexual activity among persons of the same gender has now brought us to a "status confessionis."  Synod should then deliberate on that proposal.  If it winds up then, secondly, approving it, synod should make clear what is expected of the churches.  Specific answers to questions like: may we ordain homosexual persons? Only if they are chaste?  Should we then expect chastity in the lives of all persons who experience this orientation?  Should we ask them not to marry since their doing so shows a lack of repentance for sexual activity among persons of the same gender?  If, on the other hand, synod does not approve of such a declaration, it should indicate why it is not a confessional issue and make it clear that officebearers at the local level are free to minister to their members with that in mind.  It should then also make it clear whether persons with a homosexual orientation may be nominated for office in spite of our 1973 decision ("incompatible with the will of God").

So rather than framing everything in the context of "pastoral advice," it is now time to decide one way or the other even though this may well sow division among us and force possible loss of membership or even our denominational makeup.

I wish it didn't have to be this way because I feel like we should be uniting around even this issue.  But I find that no amount of new hermeneutic can convince us that the Scriptures are actually quite tolerant of homosexual acts, and, as opposed to the women in office issue, doesn't speak in favorable terms about it, whatever the cultural expression of this was at the time, different from ours or not.  (I suspect not, but will trust good exegetes.)

In any case, to boil it right down to the basis of my "challenge," I win that one and synod should not declare that this is already a "confessional issue" as the study committee proposes.  That's simply not speaking truth.

May God bless our delegates in preparation and, hopefully, Spirit-filled deliberation in June (if we're out of the woods of Covid-19).

Blessings, everyone!  And thanks again.

Jeff,

No, I don't believe that was the point in 1975.  The point was that whatever authority synod claims on a particular issue, the wording of the decision should speak for itself.  So it's not as if something has to be in any one of the specific categories mentioned and as if it can only be in one.  I think Synod 1975 was just "exemplifying" options that synods have in making sometimes difficult decisions.

In asserting that all decisions in 1973 were framed as "pastoral advice" synod deliberately avoided "principial stance" or "confessional status," call it what you will.  But because we disagree on what that essentially means and because we seem to be drifting in a congregationalist approach again, Synod 2020 should probably discuss the issues now in terms of the "interpretation of the Heidelberg Catechism" to clarify its relevance for the day.  Any such interpretation, of course, then becomes part of the confessional binding for all who sign the Covenant for Officebearers.

I do not know where that will lead, but I have what is typical of those in their mid-seventies: some anxiety about losing each other.

As presented in the overture on kinism in the Agenda for Synod 2019, all racism is heretical in that it denies the teachings of the Belgic Confession and the Heidelberg Catechism on the doctrine of the unity of the church .  Instead of the sacrament of baptism administered to all who are born or brought into the church of Christ being central, kinism, like the heresy of justifying apartheid in South Africa, and our own North American systemic racism, teaches that one's racial identity carries greater weight than God's covenantal promises including the formation of the bride of Christ.  So when the doctrine of the unity of the church is assaulted in this way, we are definitely speaking of heresy, teaching in conflict with our adopted confessions.  The COD declaration adopted in 2020 on behalf of synod makes it clear that on this issue we have reached status confessionis.

Let me raise a question to get us back to talking about church polity.  I want to know whether the Heidelberg Catechism's listing in Q & A 87 might also be telling us that gluttons will not "inherit the kingdom of God."  This is, after all, one of the things we must warn our people about from the pulpit from time to time.  And sometimes this becomes a serious issue when we really need pastorally to warn one of our members about the consequences of not repenting of this activity.  The issue is clearly taught in Scripture.  Read Deuteronomy 21:20; Proverbs 23:2, 20-21; Proverbs 25:16; Matthew 11:18,19; Luke 7:33-35.  And doesn't "Our World Belongs to God" speak of the "mistreatment of our bodies" as a sin (see section 16 -- and, yes, we haven't raised this document to the level of a Reformed confession).  So if I have warned my people about the sin of gluttony and they are "unrepentant," would our confessional stance be that gluttons are not in the list in Lord's Day 32 so we have no right to treat them this way?  If we ever contemplated that issue at the level of consistory, council, classis and/or synod, and if we truly wanted to do what the Bible tells us to be warning people about, could we just say: o, yes, definitely, in the Christian Reformed Church we have already raised this issue to a "status confessionis"?  Or should we say that Ursinus deliberately did not include that word, so there's no way that our confessions teach this and we shouldn't be making this a creedal issue? Or the opposite? Just how do we resolve this?  By a synod explicitly saying that it interprets Q &A 87 to include the matter of gluttony in light of some recent disturbing trends in the life of our churches?  Or the opposite?  
 

We faced a similar issue on the matter of women in ecclesiastical office.  Does the mention of the word "men" in the English translation of the Belgic Confession's Article 30 decide the issue for us?  Some said yes.  Others said no because the original French version does not use the word "hommes" but, instead, uses "personnages" here.  (And thus our current English translation now says: "persons.") And as we know, Synod 1987 said that the issue is not a confessional issue but a church order issue.  That brought clarity.  

I appreciate you all participating in this discussion.  I think it will be a significant issue at Synod 2021.  (Loved Jeff Brower's post).

I'm delighted with the discussion so far.  I think it's a helpful contribution to our denomination's dealing with a very important issue.  Thank you. I'm grateful.

I do understand that in 1973 our Synod decided to declare that "explicit homosexual practice must be condemned as incompatible with obedience to the will of God as revealed in Holy Scripture."  But this decision and all the others from a. to k. in the Acts are indeed framed as "statements of pastoral advice."  So, for example, Synod 1973 carries forward the very thoughtful and empathetic approach of the study committee by also including decision g.  It says that "Christians who are homosexual in their orientation" "should recognize that their sexuality is subordinate to their obligation to live in wholehearted surrender to Christ." And then the statement goes on: "By the same token, churches should recognize that their homosexual members are fellow-servants of Christ who are to be given opportunity to render within the offices and structures of the congregation the same service that is expected from heterosexuals.  The homosexual member must not be supposed to have less the gift of self-control in the face of sexual temptation than does the heterosexual," etc.

It is my belief that Synod 1973 did take a "stand" on whether homosexual practice is compatible with the will of God, but that synod also did so much more.  I believe that this framing the statements in the context of "pastoral advice" indicates quite clearly what the delegates were after, namely, that any action of the church with regard to encouragement or discouragement or the imposition of discipline and when and how that should occur should be the province of the local consistory/council/pastor because they can address the issue with an understanding of the struggles -- trials and successes and failures -- of the persons involved, something a broader assembly like the annual synod cannot possibly do.

So once again we are are dealing with an "identity issue" that comes to us in ministry settings and synod has contemplated and is once again seriously contemplating bypassing the specific and human issues involved by making general statements derived from what is indeed an understanding based on Scriptures, namely, that homosexual activity is contrary to the Word of God.  But why are we so bent on possibly "overruling" the pastoral actions of ministers and elders and consistories that is motivated only by compassion and encouragement for all of us who are sinners in so many ways to enjoy the grace of God?  Why demand discipline of a particular kind?  Why must every case involve condemnation? Do we do that with any other human issue involving our sin and our need to be open to God's grace? That is my question.

I believe that in a great many years before we ever started discussing these things prior to the sexual revolution of the 1960's, pastors, elders and consistories were very much aware of homosexual orientation and even of people, even prominent people, who were known to be living together, and decided after pastoral concern and warnings not to move on to disciplinary actions.  I hope we can somehow still find each other this way in the midst of what is now new in our culture: the social acceptance of gay and lesbian marriage and the finger of "hypocrisy" extended to the church by the general public.  Wherever you stand on this, is it worth splitting a denomination over making assembly decisions and then trusting that pastors and caring elders will deal with their members in a biblical and positive, pastoral, upbuilding way.

Just a questioning that I'd like to see some further deliberation on......

Grace and peace to you all.