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.
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.
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.
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.
I have addressed this question on pages 119, 120 and 294, 295 of Christian Reformed Church Order Commentary. Perhaps someone in your church has one or you can order it from Faith Alive Resources. Hope it helps.
The reason why I have thus far chosen not to answer is that your example is not clear. There's a huge difference between a release from ministry at a certain place and a deposition. If Art. 14 is used, for example, the minister needs to rethink his or her calling in its entirety, but if Art. 17 is used, the minister just becomes eligible for a new call and is not rethinking the internal call at all at this point. In both instances, the Church Order makes provision in Art. 14 for a return to ministry after a "hiatus." If your example would be clearer, John, perhaps more people could respond.
It is truly difficult to communicate with each other to the benefit of all who visit this website when assertions are made that are simply not true.
I will give you but two examples. In number 1. of your September 2008 material you forwarded you make the assertion that the Church Order of the CRCNA uses the terminology: "vacant church." It may be that you read this in synodical decisions, perhaps even one or two recorded in the Supplement to Church Order articles, but I can assure you with certainty that the Church Order itself uses no such terminology. In number 3. you say that the Church Order requires meetings of classis four times a year. In point of fact, it is three times a year (Article 40b).
So, no, the Spirit does not allow me to understand your comments here even if it was intended for the benefit of the CRC. I do not question your motives. But you are not speaking the truth.
I would also like you to cool your terms. Superlatives like things being "absurd" and "heaping precept upon precept" are not helpful. To accuse prior synods of "pretentiousness" in adopting articles of the Church Order such as they are also goes far beyond what is required to make your argument. I don't believe young people in our denomination are helped by such rhetoric.
Please do not refer to me as being in a "procedural box." I do not recognize myself to be there. Are you quite sure that you are the one that is seeing the "larger picture"? Is that not possibly also a bit on the pretentious side, to use your words?
Let's speak the truth to one another in love, not use hyperbole to make sure we win our arguments.
The CRC isn't saying anything about things declared to be true by the WCRC. Article 50c of its Church Order is quite clear on that point when it says that "decisions of ecumenical bodies shall be binding upon the Christian Reformed Church only when they have been ratified by its synod." Synod relies on its Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations Committee to keep up with what is happening within the broader WCRC circles and what is officially decided by that communion and report that to the synod of the CRC. According to the Ecumenical Charter adopted by the CRC synod, this committee plays a leading role in seeing to it that the WCRC is fully apprised of official decisions made by the CRC and in carrying on those things that are important to "exercising Christian fellowship with other denominations" and "promoting the unity of the church of Jesus Christ" (Article 50a).
I have no idea what the cost of our participation in the WCRC might be. That's a question for administrators at the denominational building.
In general, I do think that we should not play out our mission in complete isolation from other Christian churches and, more particularly, other Reformed churches throughout the world.
I think your argument that "not being binding" does not equal "the CRC isn't saying anything" is a valid one. The article is making the point that local congregations and members of the CRCNA are not bound by a decision of the WCRC and may freely disagree with it. Only when the CRC synod ratifies that decision must they respect it and feel bound by it. But of course you're correct in saying that people will draw their conclusions from the fact that we are members of that ecumenical organization. Our voting representatives to gatherings of the WCRC will have the opportunity to deliberate, persuade, argue and ultimately vote on an issue and even have the opportunity to register a negative vote or submit a protest. In that case members and journalists would be well advised to refrain from attributing to the CRCNA what the WCRC has decided despite the CRCNA's objections. As for the adoption of Accra by the WARC, I am not totally aware of how that process went. I'll e-mail Peter Borgdorff and ask him to weigh in, particularly when it comes to your first and second questions. As a member of the EIRC, he would be in a much better position to respond than I am.
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.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
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.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
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.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
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.
Posted in: Non-CRC Pastor Raising Hands for Blessing and Benediction
Justin,
I have addressed this question on pages 119, 120 and 294, 295 of Christian Reformed Church Order Commentary. Perhaps someone in your church has one or you can order it from Faith Alive Resources. Hope it helps.
Posted in: CRC Church Order Commentary
Sorry. That first sentence should say CRC Church Order COMMENTARY. Newly writing a Church Order is not really my style! Only a synod could do that.
Posted in: DeMoor Sept 9 Banner Article on Order.
The reason why I have thus far chosen not to answer is that your example is not clear. There's a huge difference between a release from ministry at a certain place and a deposition. If Art. 14 is used, for example, the minister needs to rethink his or her calling in its entirety, but if Art. 17 is used, the minister just becomes eligible for a new call and is not rethinking the internal call at all at this point. In both instances, the Church Order makes provision in Art. 14 for a return to ministry after a "hiatus." If your example would be clearer, John, perhaps more people could respond.
Posted in: DeMoor Sept 9 Banner Article on Order.
Dear John,
It is truly difficult to communicate with each other to the benefit of all who visit this website when assertions are made that are simply not true.
I will give you but two examples. In number 1. of your September 2008 material you forwarded you make the assertion that the Church Order of the CRCNA uses the terminology: "vacant church." It may be that you read this in synodical decisions, perhaps even one or two recorded in the Supplement to Church Order articles, but I can assure you with certainty that the Church Order itself uses no such terminology. In number 3. you say that the Church Order requires meetings of classis four times a year. In point of fact, it is three times a year (Article 40b).
So, no, the Spirit does not allow me to understand your comments here even if it was intended for the benefit of the CRC. I do not question your motives. But you are not speaking the truth.
I would also like you to cool your terms. Superlatives like things being "absurd" and "heaping precept upon precept" are not helpful. To accuse prior synods of "pretentiousness" in adopting articles of the Church Order such as they are also goes far beyond what is required to make your argument. I don't believe young people in our denomination are helped by such rhetoric.
Please do not refer to me as being in a "procedural box." I do not recognize myself to be there. Are you quite sure that you are the one that is seeing the "larger picture"? Is that not possibly also a bit on the pretentious side, to use your words?
Let's speak the truth to one another in love, not use hyperbole to make sure we win our arguments.
Posted in: What Does It Mean To/For the CRC When WCRC Adopts or Declares Something — or Does Stuff?
The CRC isn't saying anything about things declared to be true by the WCRC. Article 50c of its Church Order is quite clear on that point when it says that "decisions of ecumenical bodies shall be binding upon the Christian Reformed Church only when they have been ratified by its synod." Synod relies on its Ecumenical and Interfaith Relations Committee to keep up with what is happening within the broader WCRC circles and what is officially decided by that communion and report that to the synod of the CRC. According to the Ecumenical Charter adopted by the CRC synod, this committee plays a leading role in seeing to it that the WCRC is fully apprised of official decisions made by the CRC and in carrying on those things that are important to "exercising Christian fellowship with other denominations" and "promoting the unity of the church of Jesus Christ" (Article 50a).
I have no idea what the cost of our participation in the WCRC might be. That's a question for administrators at the denominational building.
In general, I do think that we should not play out our mission in complete isolation from other Christian churches and, more particularly, other Reformed churches throughout the world.
Posted in: What Does It Mean To/For the CRC When WCRC Adopts or Declares Something — or Does Stuff?
I think your argument that "not being binding" does not equal "the CRC isn't saying anything" is a valid one. The article is making the point that local congregations and members of the CRCNA are not bound by a decision of the WCRC and may freely disagree with it. Only when the CRC synod ratifies that decision must they respect it and feel bound by it. But of course you're correct in saying that people will draw their conclusions from the fact that we are members of that ecumenical organization. Our voting representatives to gatherings of the WCRC will have the opportunity to deliberate, persuade, argue and ultimately vote on an issue and even have the opportunity to register a negative vote or submit a protest. In that case members and journalists would be well advised to refrain from attributing to the CRCNA what the WCRC has decided despite the CRCNA's objections. As for the adoption of Accra by the WARC, I am not totally aware of how that process went. I'll e-mail Peter Borgdorff and ask him to weigh in, particularly when it comes to your first and second questions. As a member of the EIRC, he would be in a much better position to respond than I am.