Retired from the seminary on August 31, 2010. Served 24 years as Professor of Church Polity, eight of those with the additional responsibility of VP for Academic Affairs. Served at Synod of the CRCNA for two years as a delegate and for twenty years as an adviser.
Looks like there's no "takers" so far. So I'll respond and see if others want to join in on it. Indeed, Article 4 provides that the council must provide the names of nominees and then the congregation chooses. There are models other than election. My commentary contains quite a number of them, but in all these models it is the council that nominates. Council means: the minister(s), elders, and deacons combined. This is confirmed in Art. 35a where approval of nominations is also said to be a part of the common administration of the church to be dealt with by the council. Neither the consistory (minister and elders only) nor the diaconate has the right to "trump" the council's responsibility in any way. So eligibility for office is also decided upon by the council (all local officebearers together). So whether women are eligible in that local church or whether drinking alcohol is tolerated, etc. -- this is all up to the council. The only thing some councils have done at times is to leave such an issue up to the congregation at a congregational meeting where adult confessing members vote. They decide that eligibility issues like this is a "major matter" as Article 37 has it so they let the congregation decide it after they've recommended something like this. Other councils have argued that this should not be decided "democratically" by the congregation (even though there may be an opportunity for members to express themselves on it) but by council that is ultimately responsible for the issue and this, says Article 37 also, is possible because the "authority for making and carrying out final decisions remains with the council as the governing body of the church."
Faith Alive Resources would appreciate it if you ran out and bought the commentary or your church decided to buy a copy for anybody to consult. I don't make any $ on royalty, so this is strictly a matter of charity to your favorite publishing house!
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.
Well, I can try to explain it. VanDellen and Monsma, in their Revised Church Order Commentary, limited performing "official acts of the ministry" to ministers of the Word -- not laypersons, but also not students or exhorters or elders reading sermons. Synod 2001, however, broadened this permission to "ordained leaders," as you can see in my previous post on this topic. I don't think that this decision of Synod 2001 has truly found its way into our routines and practices, but it should. The correction would have to go by way of reminding the council or consistory of this decision.
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, 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......
I hope and pray that no one in our midst underestimates the terrible effects of church splits. After all, Paul tells us to "make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace" and to "bear one another in love" (Eph. 4:2,3).
As an elementary school pupil and a child in a parsonage family in the Netherlands in the 1950's I experienced all the narratives of friends no longer friends and family members turned against their own. As a kid I was blown away by all these stories about things after the church split right in the middle of the Second World War, 1944. The so-called Article 31 or Liberated churches left the denomination and formed their own after a synod had deposed a pastor and professor. When I returned years later, this time as a minister myself, I once had to preach in another village. A group of tourists from Michigan called from a hotel and asked where I was preaching and indicated they wanted to come. I did not see them when I began with the Lord's greeting. But ten minutes in they streamed through the doors and sat the only place they could: at the very front. I welcomed them in English and then informed the congregation in Dutch who these people were. After the service I found out what happened. The bus unloaded at the other church (Liberated) without a sign to that effect. When the tour leader did not see my name in the bulletin he caught on. They all exited and climbed back into the bus. The driver asked where the "other Gereformeerde Kerk" might be found, but they refused to say. So he asked a "gentile" downtown who was willing to give him directions.
I met some of these people on Vancouver Island in my first charge. One man in particular (a member of the CRC since there was no Canadian Reformed Church on the island) told me how he received letters every week from his relatives in the Netherlands, urging him to join the "pure church" to save his soul. They insisted he should move to the mainland even if he would thus have to lose his job and try to find something else. Staying in the CRC would be anathema.
In the area of my next charge in another province, a wife was a member of the CRC and her husband of the Canadian Reformed group. When the CRC pastor showed up to visit the wife, the husband working in the barn put his sons up to deflating the pastor's car tires, which they did in pure glee.
Every time I asked what the real issue was back in 1944. They were unable to tell me. The hurt was so heavy they couldn't remember. (It was presumptive regeneration at the time of infant baptism).
I have many similar stories about experiences in the ministry but I want to be brief.
I remember being a witness in two court cases while teaching at Calvin Seminary. In both, a group left with the church building over the objections of a minority. Folks had to go to court to try and get their building back because the Articles of Incorporation said that anyone who left the teachings of the CRC would have to leave without the assets. In both cases they prevailed. But then there was the other one that never went to court. A schismatic pastor set up a new corporation, had it overlap with the old corporation for one month, then sold the building to the new one for $1.00. Older folks, founding members included, wanted desperately to remain in the CRC and were upset that the building they had paid fortunes for over the years was no longer theirs. They asked: is there anything that can be done? I told them that the council did not respect the classis and would not listen to them, so an appeal wouldn't do a thing for them. I said that the council had violated the Articles of Incorporation and that they would need to file a lawsuit in the courts. They said: we can't do that; the apostle Paul told us not to go to court. So they just filtered off to other CRC congregations. Somehow, I don't believe that Paul meant to allow a group among them to buy a building for $1.00 and just tell folks: if you don't stay with us, then "good-bye."
We've observed what's happening in Presbyterian circles and in the RCA. Do we really want the same narratives in our denomination? Wouldn't it be more according to Paul's wishes that we try to stay together and respect each other as fellow-Christians who do or do not have a significantly different approach to one issue? That will likely not be possible if we raise this issue to the level of status confessionis. Every officebearer would then be bound by a synodical approval of the interpretation of two words in the Heidelberg Catechism. I shudder to think of what that's going to mean in our family and friend relationships. And how devastating this would be to so many of our people.
I know -- we're "watchmen on the walls of Zion" and we're going to keep our teaching and ministry pure. The truth demands it. Well, that's the theme of all the splits and I truly feel that we shouldn't keep this narrative up until the Lord returns. That's a witness to the world in and of itself. Synods are there to help us stay together while the world burns all around us and cries out for the Gospel.
I'm aware that this is a bit of a rant. But I'd love your responses and a further discussion while we're still not quite in the heat of synodical deliberation.
Appreciate the honest question, so I'll give you an honest answer.
I think it would be best to allow everyone to interpret the two words in the Heidelberg Catechism as they see fit and give consistories and elders the freedom to do that in their own setting -- in other words, not binding them confessionally.
Then, I would have no objection to synod adopting a "position" -- even if it would say that homosexual acts are incompatible with the will of God -- and listing that with all the other positions on so many other issues on our denominational website for all to read and respect. Or something more nuanced. Whatever the majority believes. But let's not force the issue by interpreting the Heidelberg Catechism the way we would like to and having that function as a straitjacket for every pastor and elder.
Keep what 1973 also said: its statements are all "pastoral advice." We've never raised this to a status confessionis at any synod of the CRCNA. We should keep it that way. Pastors and elders will have room to maneuver in being pastoral and biblical in whatever circumstances their members find themselves.
No, it is not a matter of original intent. How Ursinus thought about these things is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the Christian Reformed Church's synods have said about the Q&A of the Heidelberg Catechism. We are not bound by Ursinus' thoughts. We are bound by the confessions we have adopted and the interpretation of the confessional statements in them. So it is whether the synod of the CRCNA has ever insisted that "unchastity" includes homosexual activity. My point is that it has not, even though it has had every opportunity to do so. Instead, the synods have gone the way of a position and of pastoral advice for the churches. If synod did so decide, then we would have to discipline members in a homosexual relationship right up to the point of excommunication and officebearers who tolerated the activity right up to the point of deposition from office. This should be very clear to everyone. But I guess it's not.
Posted in: Which office discusses and decides who is eligible for call to Elders and Deacons?
David,
Looks like there's no "takers" so far. So I'll respond and see if others want to join in on it. Indeed, Article 4 provides that the council must provide the names of nominees and then the congregation chooses. There are models other than election. My commentary contains quite a number of them, but in all these models it is the council that nominates. Council means: the minister(s), elders, and deacons combined. This is confirmed in Art. 35a where approval of nominations is also said to be a part of the common administration of the church to be dealt with by the council. Neither the consistory (minister and elders only) nor the diaconate has the right to "trump" the council's responsibility in any way. So eligibility for office is also decided upon by the council (all local officebearers together). So whether women are eligible in that local church or whether drinking alcohol is tolerated, etc. -- this is all up to the council. The only thing some councils have done at times is to leave such an issue up to the congregation at a congregational meeting where adult confessing members vote. They decide that eligibility issues like this is a "major matter" as Article 37 has it so they let the congregation decide it after they've recommended something like this. Other councils have argued that this should not be decided "democratically" by the congregation (even though there may be an opportunity for members to express themselves on it) but by council that is ultimately responsible for the issue and this, says Article 37 also, is possible because the "authority for making and carrying out final decisions remains with the council as the governing body of the church."
Faith Alive Resources would appreciate it if you ran out and bought the commentary or your church decided to buy a copy for anybody to consult. I don't make any $ on royalty, so this is strictly a matter of charity to your favorite publishing house!
Grace and peace,
Posted in: Can a lay person bring God's greeting at the start of a worship service?
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.
Posted in: Can a lay person bring God's greeting at the start of a worship service?
Well, I can try to explain it. VanDellen and Monsma, in their Revised Church Order Commentary, limited performing "official acts of the ministry" to ministers of the Word -- not laypersons, but also not students or exhorters or elders reading sermons. Synod 2001, however, broadened this permission to "ordained leaders," as you can see in my previous post on this topic. I don't think that this decision of Synod 2001 has truly found its way into our routines and practices, but it should. The correction would have to go by way of reminding the council or consistory of this decision.
Posted in: Can a lay person bring God's greeting at the start of a worship service?
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!
Posted in: Status Confessionis
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.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
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.
Posted in: 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).
Posted in: Status Confessionis
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.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
One more thing:
I hope and pray that no one in our midst underestimates the terrible effects of church splits. After all, Paul tells us to "make every effort to keep the unity of the Spirit through the bond of peace" and to "bear one another in love" (Eph. 4:2,3).
As an elementary school pupil and a child in a parsonage family in the Netherlands in the 1950's I experienced all the narratives of friends no longer friends and family members turned against their own. As a kid I was blown away by all these stories about things after the church split right in the middle of the Second World War, 1944. The so-called Article 31 or Liberated churches left the denomination and formed their own after a synod had deposed a pastor and professor. When I returned years later, this time as a minister myself, I once had to preach in another village. A group of tourists from Michigan called from a hotel and asked where I was preaching and indicated they wanted to come. I did not see them when I began with the Lord's greeting. But ten minutes in they streamed through the doors and sat the only place they could: at the very front. I welcomed them in English and then informed the congregation in Dutch who these people were. After the service I found out what happened. The bus unloaded at the other church (Liberated) without a sign to that effect. When the tour leader did not see my name in the bulletin he caught on. They all exited and climbed back into the bus. The driver asked where the "other Gereformeerde Kerk" might be found, but they refused to say. So he asked a "gentile" downtown who was willing to give him directions.
I met some of these people on Vancouver Island in my first charge. One man in particular (a member of the CRC since there was no Canadian Reformed Church on the island) told me how he received letters every week from his relatives in the Netherlands, urging him to join the "pure church" to save his soul. They insisted he should move to the mainland even if he would thus have to lose his job and try to find something else. Staying in the CRC would be anathema.
In the area of my next charge in another province, a wife was a member of the CRC and her husband of the Canadian Reformed group. When the CRC pastor showed up to visit the wife, the husband working in the barn put his sons up to deflating the pastor's car tires, which they did in pure glee.
Every time I asked what the real issue was back in 1944. They were unable to tell me. The hurt was so heavy they couldn't remember. (It was presumptive regeneration at the time of infant baptism).
I have many similar stories about experiences in the ministry but I want to be brief.
I remember being a witness in two court cases while teaching at Calvin Seminary. In both, a group left with the church building over the objections of a minority. Folks had to go to court to try and get their building back because the Articles of Incorporation said that anyone who left the teachings of the CRC would have to leave without the assets. In both cases they prevailed. But then there was the other one that never went to court. A schismatic pastor set up a new corporation, had it overlap with the old corporation for one month, then sold the building to the new one for $1.00. Older folks, founding members included, wanted desperately to remain in the CRC and were upset that the building they had paid fortunes for over the years was no longer theirs. They asked: is there anything that can be done? I told them that the council did not respect the classis and would not listen to them, so an appeal wouldn't do a thing for them. I said that the council had violated the Articles of Incorporation and that they would need to file a lawsuit in the courts. They said: we can't do that; the apostle Paul told us not to go to court. So they just filtered off to other CRC congregations. Somehow, I don't believe that Paul meant to allow a group among them to buy a building for $1.00 and just tell folks: if you don't stay with us, then "good-bye."
We've observed what's happening in Presbyterian circles and in the RCA. Do we really want the same narratives in our denomination? Wouldn't it be more according to Paul's wishes that we try to stay together and respect each other as fellow-Christians who do or do not have a significantly different approach to one issue? That will likely not be possible if we raise this issue to the level of status confessionis. Every officebearer would then be bound by a synodical approval of the interpretation of two words in the Heidelberg Catechism. I shudder to think of what that's going to mean in our family and friend relationships. And how devastating this would be to so many of our people.
I know -- we're "watchmen on the walls of Zion" and we're going to keep our teaching and ministry pure. The truth demands it. Well, that's the theme of all the splits and I truly feel that we shouldn't keep this narrative up until the Lord returns. That's a witness to the world in and of itself. Synods are there to help us stay together while the world burns all around us and cries out for the Gospel.
I'm aware that this is a bit of a rant. But I'd love your responses and a further discussion while we're still not quite in the heat of synodical deliberation.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
Appreciate the honest question, so I'll give you an honest answer.
I think it would be best to allow everyone to interpret the two words in the Heidelberg Catechism as they see fit and give consistories and elders the freedom to do that in their own setting -- in other words, not binding them confessionally.
Then, I would have no objection to synod adopting a "position" -- even if it would say that homosexual acts are incompatible with the will of God -- and listing that with all the other positions on so many other issues on our denominational website for all to read and respect. Or something more nuanced. Whatever the majority believes. But let's not force the issue by interpreting the Heidelberg Catechism the way we would like to and having that function as a straitjacket for every pastor and elder.
Keep what 1973 also said: its statements are all "pastoral advice." We've never raised this to a status confessionis at any synod of the CRCNA. We should keep it that way. Pastors and elders will have room to maneuver in being pastoral and biblical in whatever circumstances their members find themselves.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
An old man making space for sin.
Just a tad ad hominem and slightly overboard among brothers in Christ, don't you think?
Let's keep this respectful please.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
No, it is not a matter of original intent. How Ursinus thought about these things is irrelevant. What is relevant is what the Christian Reformed Church's synods have said about the Q&A of the Heidelberg Catechism. We are not bound by Ursinus' thoughts. We are bound by the confessions we have adopted and the interpretation of the confessional statements in them. So it is whether the synod of the CRCNA has ever insisted that "unchastity" includes homosexual activity. My point is that it has not, even though it has had every opportunity to do so. Instead, the synods have gone the way of a position and of pastoral advice for the churches. If synod did so decide, then we would have to discipline members in a homosexual relationship right up to the point of excommunication and officebearers who tolerated the activity right up to the point of deposition from office. This should be very clear to everyone. But I guess it's not.