Yes, we have some things in common, ie., scriptural authority, God creating the universe. However, the extent of scriptural authority, the way we understand scripture, and the way God created the universe and people is important also. It is interesting that you as a non-scientist, and me as one who has a B.A. in philosophy and English, as well as a B.Sc. in Agricultural science, should have somewhat opposing perspectives on the validity of evolutionary science, as well as on how to understand literature (the Bible).
Is it important to some degree to have a fall-back position that if evolution were incontrovertibly true in every aspect (mud to man, goo-to-you, microbes to microbiologist) then how would scripture be still relevant. Is that what you are proposing? An insurance policy?
Back to your comments. Yes you are convinced of evolutionary theory in its totality, in spite of your stated lack of expertise; and I am convinced there is a lack of evidence for macro evolution, even though possibly the actual material of the universe might possibly be older than 10,000 yrs. Although, I think our minds cannot totally wrap around the possibility of time change, accelerated or decelerating expansion of the universe, etc. Cases of radio carbon dating not able to deal with recent volcano formation accurately remains unexplained. Cases of C14 material imbedded in much older(supposed) rock, remains unexplained. Macro evolution as far as I can tell is based on speculation, on the basis of faith in the theory, on only one interpretation, and not on actual fossil evidence. Documented fraud and error has been perpetrated by the evolutionary theory both in scientific papers and in classroom textbooks, particularly for the more well known assumptions of evolutionary theory, and particularly when it comes to theorizing on descent or evolution of humans.
But, you remain convinced that evolutionary theory is inviolable, so lets consider the typology problem. You suggest that even if Adam did not exist, people still sinned against God. However, you have not provided a mechanism for their sin. Why have they sinned? Why are they disobedient? Evolution theory suggests that there is no moral or ethical element in man’s development. Evolution is a process of death, competition, destruction, elimination of the less able, of survival and selection of species and individuals. Those are the morals of evolution. Why would God counter his own creation process through his commands to people. Or, why would God use a creation process so different from His own stated ideals for holiness, purity, kindness? Even Cain’s murder of Abel would merely be a natural evolutionary act.
If Eden is merely part of the typology, how does it relate? How could Eden then be anything other than the competitive, destructive, death dealing evolutionary process? What is the relevance in the typology of the fall into sin creating death? Doesn’t that make the typology entirely absurd? As a mere typology without substance, it would be seen to be absurd in the context of the evolutionary theory. The question would be asked: repent from what? From my evolutionary instincts and process?
The difference between Adam, and Christian in “Pilgrim’s Progress” is that “Christian” is a reflection of the redeemed man (not Everyman), not the presumed ancestor or progenitor of everyman’s sinful nature. Furthermore, if Adam did not exist, and if our sinful nature is merely our evolutionary process in action, then the validity of Pilgrim’s Progress will also be questioned. The significance of the creation story perhaps lies as much in whether God really did create everything good or not, or what God’s definition of “good” really is. Or in fact, whether God really spoke to man at all, or whether man created God rather than God creating man.
I find your identification of “new” and “old” somewhat limited, or perhaps lacking in depth. We often say “new” in generic comprehensive terms without identifying what is old and what is new. Ecclesiastes says there is nothing new under the sun. Yet it seems new to us. Hebrews 8-10 talks about the old and new covenenant but concentrates specifically on temple, worship, and sacrifices in particular. But it maintains that in understanding this new covenant, he who continues to sin places himself outside of this new covenant, which sounds suspiciously like the old covenant, doesn’t it. In other words, the old and the new covenant are different, yet inseparable.
So the Christians during the reformation brought new insights which were actually a return to old insights and precepts. Having just read the first nine chapters or books of Augustine’s confessions, it became obvious to all of us in this study group, that Augustine’s experiences of 300 AD were very similar to our own in 2014. New information does lead to new insights, true, but we should be very cautious about generalizations which are often untrue in specific cases.
On the science side, I would suggest that you not idolize the scientific community. They are human beings like everyone else, like mechanics, doctors, engineers. They do a lot of good stuff, but they make mistakes. Doctors bleeding people in order to cure illness. Lacking an understanding of bacteria, viruses. Slowly finding ways to treat AIDS but not cure it. Not yet anyway.
Scientists can work with things they can experiment with. But going back in time? Not so simple. Lots of assumptions. They may well find they were wrong on several significant points. I am finding too many problems with their assumptions about layering of sediment, placement of fossils, age of volcanic rocks, undocumented leaps of evolutionary progress.
I am only 60 years old, so I have not yet seen everything. One thing I have seen is that there are more scientific problems with evolution today than there were in the past. Another thing I have also seen is that for many, evolution is a religion or faith, held to most strongly by those who have the least information on it. So that makes me doubly cautious, something like Augustine’s eventual suspicion of the Manichees who lacked knowledge of the basics.
God will lead and teach us, but not all will be willing to accept His teaching until forced to at the last day. Evolution is the primary present day tool to lead us philosophically and morally away from God. On its own, it justifies our unlimited pursuit of money, superiority, material possessions, power, aggressive wars, lack of care for the poor. It provides a rationale for abortion and euthanasia. It supports the idea of a god as a blind watchmaker, if he exists. If evolution can convince us to deny that God created everything good, and that Adam and Eve (man) were not originally responsible for sin, then Satan will be happy when people begin to think that really god is to blame for sin, not us, and that it is just and right that Jesus as god died for his own sin, and is absurd that he could pay for ours.
I am not quite so pessimistic as I sometimes sound, so I trust God will use all of this for his honor and glory. But we must not lose sight of the antithesis, of the battleground for the souls of men. People of the church have too blithely assumed that Satan is no longer active, and that our sinful nature is barely relevant. This sinful nature inclines human beings to look for an origin and solution outside of God. This is the present day struggle, which is not a new struggle. Jesus warned about all those who came to God in the last day saying: “Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophecy in your name, didn’t we cast out demons, didn’t we heal the sick” and God says to them, get away from me, you workers of lawlessness.” “Only the one who does the will of the Father in heaven will enter”. This warning is always in my mind.
Roger, you are very close to understanding the truth. The central teaching of Jesus as propitiation you have stated well, but then seem to say that Jesus was just a good teacher. When I mention God, or Jesus, since they are the same, it is only for aspect or emphasis, not for distinction. As for works, its not that they count for nothing at all. They have their rewards as Jesus often said. But they do count for nothing in terms of eliminating guilt. The thief on the cross was saved in spite of not having an opportunity to do any works after his faith, and after his repentance. His guilt was not removed by his own doing, but only by God's grace, by the grace of Jesus Christ. If works were required, he could not have been saved.
Edwin, you suggest that God brought the world into its present physical condition thru evolutionary processes. This appears to be a faith statement on your part. Since you don't say that your idea of evolution is different than the general theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin, Dawkins, et.al., then it is necessary that you have an explanation for how and why God is in control of this process. Evolution was promoted both before and after Darwin as an explanation that could eliminate God in the equation; it was not promoted as a way of honoring God. So you would need to explain how it honors God, and how it is indicated by scripture, and how biology/geology/paleontology proves it, and how this demonstrates God. What evidence do you have for an endpoint? How do you know that human beings are the endpoint... according to the theory, they could just as well be an intermediate inferior step towards the progression of something better. In a way, this is what Hitler proposed in terms of racial superiority, that one race could be superior to another. Why was he wrong?
So, if God is playing a role... then what role is God playing? Is your idea of this role consistent with who God is, how he has revealed himself in scripture? When we think of the natural laws of physics, mathematics, such as gravity and consistency of numbers and objects, we see God as a God of order, of beauty, symmetry. Evolutionary theory would see God as a God of disorder, randomness, accidents, death and destruction and survival. If this is how God created, then what does the world need to be renewed from? What does it need to be saved from?
I note that you did not address the fact that scientific evidence/knowledge is indicating less and less support for evolution over time, as I noted in the example of human and chimp genome dissimilarities. What would it take for you to lose your faith in evolution?
In a court of law, there are usually experts on both sides. This is also true in this case. Just as you and Edwin, two non-experts, have decided to follow a certain path without any knowledge to back it up, so even scientists often do the same. The geologists follow the path of the paleontologists, and paleontologists use an apparent "expert" opinion by a geneticist, while the geneticist follows a statement or two from a fossil expert. In the meantime, their own interpretations are colored by their assumptions, the pre-conceived notions about what is the most likely interpretation. For that reason, supposed experts in fossils have made huge mistakes of interpretation of various fossils, such as calling a tooth a neanderthal tooth and falsely building a whole theory around it, when in fact it was a pig's tooth, as confirmed by an anatomist. When you say you will trust the experts, I say you don't know what you are talking about. You don't know who the experts are, nor do you know if indeed they are truly experts, nor do you distinguish in what they are expert at. Even experts make mistakes, as identified by other experts. Experts are not infallible, and this has been shown over and over again in the field of evolutionary interpretation.
Every PhD is considered an expert legally. Yet they can disagree with each other, and often do. This book called "Evolution's Achilles Heels" is written by nine experts, nine PhDs, in subjects ranging from paleontology to geology, to mechanical engineering, to physical chemistry, to nuclear physics, to genetics. They point out the fatal flaws for evolution in a reasonable, comprehensive, understandable way. They are able to do this because they are not locked into the prevailing evolutionary mindset, although most of them were evolutionists at one time.
Throughout evolutionary science, expert opinions have changed, vacillated, and repented. Few evolutionists still follow more than half of Darwin's conclusions, because they have been proved false. Many previous assumptions about sediment being laid down by wind, are changing into the idea that sediments were laid down by water, not wind. Evolutionist assumptions about uniformitarianism are changing into a recognition of the necessity for catastrophism which is dramatically different than earlier "expert" assumptions. So, you have a choice: you can follow the wrong experts, or the right experts. Or you can realize that you should follow the truth, rather than people. (The blind leading the blind... lemmings falling off a cliff... if everyone jumps off a bridge, will you?.... etc., etc.)
Scripture asks us, no tells us, to defend the faith and contend for the faith. (Jude) To put on the full armor of God. In that sense we mount the ramparts. The struggle is the same as it has always been, between following God and following the world. We like to do both, but it doesn't work; it was the downfall of both Israel and Judah, and led to the decline of the roman cath church, which led to the reformation.
The reformed roots were to bring God's people back to scripture, rather than to man's opinions. We are to be reformed from a life of sin and separation from God, towards a life of repentance and consecration towards God, using scripture as God's word, as our guide. Accomodating to worldly living is not being reformed. Being reformed is informing ourselves and others how the world should be transformed in its living if it desired to follow Christ. Fundamentalism is a worldly concept, not worthy of comment. Being a radical christian means dedicating all of life to God, not trying to accomodate our desire to be like the world.
When we have difficult questions, which we always will, they should be answered in a scriptural and reformed way, and not given the credence which caused the problem in the first place. For example, since there are so many divorces, should we have an article in the banner saying that since there are so many divorces, that probably that is a normal state of affairs, which we should have a special ceremony for? or should we have an article advising us to reform our lives and attitudes in such a way as to reduce the number of divorces?
A Banner that denigrates the basic confessions and supports immoral living has nothing to say to us that the world is not already saying. If it continues to do that, it will cease to be a christian magazine, much less a reformed magazine. The mandate of the Banner is not to imitate the Washington Post or the Toronto Star. It is not to create controversy. It is not to provide both sides of every issue as if both sides are always valid. Rather, it is to be a witness to Christ, to contend for the faith, explain the milk and the meat of the gospel, and to help us put on the full armor of God.
Isaac's example is clear. His father sent a servant to get a wife for him. His union was anticipated and publicly approved and acknowledged. It was acknowledged as marriage, a permanent committment. No one questioned whether this was a trial period, or a partnership of temporary convenience. It is our lack of understanding of marriage that sometimes creates the issue, especially when we have cohabitation as an imitation of the world's view of sex and marriage.
It is not primarily the state that validates marriage, nor even the church. Instead it is the public and private committment for marriage until death do us part that is the marriage. The state and the church facilitate this committment, and consolidate and support this committment. But when young cohabiting people deny they are married, or fail to announce their marriage committment in some public way, they are simply indicating a lack of committment, a lack of marriage. If they are committed, they ought to use every means at their disposal to support that committment. They should not leave their committment in question. Instead, they are reserving the right to renege. This is not the way of christian living, but the way of the world, and should not be supported by the church.
David Feddes raised some very excellent points relative to the politics of selecting banner editors, editorial committees, synodical oversight, and the banner purpose. I think the comment about Canadian vs USA staff is not so pertinent, since if all editors had been USA but equally provocative, the problems would have remained. On the other hand, Ken Bakker's comments are written in a barely acceptable fashion as has been pointed out, since they appear to defend the indefensible. If this magazine goes to every home on the involuntary membership dollar, then it ought to uphold the confessions and scripture. These two questionable articles clearly did not do so. Furthermore, the ten years of editorship has not in fact been without "issues", as David pointed out with regard to the "don't be so sure" article.
While I have suggested that we forgive Bob DeMoor for his indiscretion in the two inflammatory articles, I was again put off by the title "where have they all gone?", relating again to the homosex issue. It would be interesting to use the same title for an article on where the great majority of people have left for other reasons, including acceptance of women in office, crc apparent acceptance of homosex, acceptance of premarital sex, and questioning of primary doctrines from Genesis. How many left because being upset with the statements made by John Suk? How many left for other reasons related to lack of orthodoxy, and ignoring of scripture? With a general decline since 1992, it is becoming apparent that many denominational statements and positions are driving crc people either to more orthodox reformed churches because they perceive a better correlation to scripture there, or to anabaptist churches because they sense a better committment to christian living there. Traditional social crc members will likely remain because of their primary committment to their heritage, social situation, family relationships, but yet they will decline. Only a primary commitment to scripture, to God and Christ above all, and to Christian living in both personal and communal aspects, will provide motivation to remain with the denomination. Thus these types of banner articles serve only to drive people away, with no beneficial side effect, since they also separate people who remain, away from God and from His Will.
Forgiveness for the publishing of two inflammatory articles implies repentance and a renewed sense of discretion with regard to the implications of titles, articles, and the way they are written. Without that discretion well applied, crc members will often feel like prisoners of the system, implicitly maligned by perverse statements having the "apparent" blessing of an involuntary publication funded by their church tax dollars.
I would also suggest that the banner withdraw from all magazine competitions regarding various article categories (I forget the name of the association or award committee), since review by such an organization has led to awards for some articles that I think should not even have been in the magazine, and such type of "peer" review can lead to a perversion of the intent and method of various articles and editorial content. The only review that matters is what God has said about it, and that should be interpreted by the denomination, not by some outside organization which has standards outside of and not approved by crc confessions, nor by scripture.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Edwin, thanks for your response.
Yes, we have some things in common, ie., scriptural authority, God creating the universe. However, the extent of scriptural authority, the way we understand scripture, and the way God created the universe and people is important also. It is interesting that you as a non-scientist, and me as one who has a B.A. in philosophy and English, as well as a B.Sc. in Agricultural science, should have somewhat opposing perspectives on the validity of evolutionary science, as well as on how to understand literature (the Bible).
Is it important to some degree to have a fall-back position that if evolution were incontrovertibly true in every aspect (mud to man, goo-to-you, microbes to microbiologist) then how would scripture be still relevant. Is that what you are proposing? An insurance policy?
Back to your comments. Yes you are convinced of evolutionary theory in its totality, in spite of your stated lack of expertise; and I am convinced there is a lack of evidence for macro evolution, even though possibly the actual material of the universe might possibly be older than 10,000 yrs. Although, I think our minds cannot totally wrap around the possibility of time change, accelerated or decelerating expansion of the universe, etc. Cases of radio carbon dating not able to deal with recent volcano formation accurately remains unexplained. Cases of C14 material imbedded in much older(supposed) rock, remains unexplained. Macro evolution as far as I can tell is based on speculation, on the basis of faith in the theory, on only one interpretation, and not on actual fossil evidence. Documented fraud and error has been perpetrated by the evolutionary theory both in scientific papers and in classroom textbooks, particularly for the more well known assumptions of evolutionary theory, and particularly when it comes to theorizing on descent or evolution of humans.
But, you remain convinced that evolutionary theory is inviolable, so lets consider the typology problem. You suggest that even if Adam did not exist, people still sinned against God. However, you have not provided a mechanism for their sin. Why have they sinned? Why are they disobedient? Evolution theory suggests that there is no moral or ethical element in man’s development. Evolution is a process of death, competition, destruction, elimination of the less able, of survival and selection of species and individuals. Those are the morals of evolution. Why would God counter his own creation process through his commands to people. Or, why would God use a creation process so different from His own stated ideals for holiness, purity, kindness? Even Cain’s murder of Abel would merely be a natural evolutionary act.
If Eden is merely part of the typology, how does it relate? How could Eden then be anything other than the competitive, destructive, death dealing evolutionary process? What is the relevance in the typology of the fall into sin creating death? Doesn’t that make the typology entirely absurd? As a mere typology without substance, it would be seen to be absurd in the context of the evolutionary theory. The question would be asked: repent from what? From my evolutionary instincts and process?
The difference between Adam, and Christian in “Pilgrim’s Progress” is that “Christian” is a reflection of the redeemed man (not Everyman), not the presumed ancestor or progenitor of everyman’s sinful nature. Furthermore, if Adam did not exist, and if our sinful nature is merely our evolutionary process in action, then the validity of Pilgrim’s Progress will also be questioned. The significance of the creation story perhaps lies as much in whether God really did create everything good or not, or what God’s definition of “good” really is. Or in fact, whether God really spoke to man at all, or whether man created God rather than God creating man.
I find your identification of “new” and “old” somewhat limited, or perhaps lacking in depth. We often say “new” in generic comprehensive terms without identifying what is old and what is new. Ecclesiastes says there is nothing new under the sun. Yet it seems new to us. Hebrews 8-10 talks about the old and new covenenant but concentrates specifically on temple, worship, and sacrifices in particular. But it maintains that in understanding this new covenant, he who continues to sin places himself outside of this new covenant, which sounds suspiciously like the old covenant, doesn’t it. In other words, the old and the new covenant are different, yet inseparable.
So the Christians during the reformation brought new insights which were actually a return to old insights and precepts. Having just read the first nine chapters or books of Augustine’s confessions, it became obvious to all of us in this study group, that Augustine’s experiences of 300 AD were very similar to our own in 2014. New information does lead to new insights, true, but we should be very cautious about generalizations which are often untrue in specific cases.
On the science side, I would suggest that you not idolize the scientific community. They are human beings like everyone else, like mechanics, doctors, engineers. They do a lot of good stuff, but they make mistakes. Doctors bleeding people in order to cure illness. Lacking an understanding of bacteria, viruses. Slowly finding ways to treat AIDS but not cure it. Not yet anyway.
Scientists can work with things they can experiment with. But going back in time? Not so simple. Lots of assumptions. They may well find they were wrong on several significant points. I am finding too many problems with their assumptions about layering of sediment, placement of fossils, age of volcanic rocks, undocumented leaps of evolutionary progress.
I am only 60 years old, so I have not yet seen everything. One thing I have seen is that there are more scientific problems with evolution today than there were in the past. Another thing I have also seen is that for many, evolution is a religion or faith, held to most strongly by those who have the least information on it. So that makes me doubly cautious, something like Augustine’s eventual suspicion of the Manichees who lacked knowledge of the basics.
God will lead and teach us, but not all will be willing to accept His teaching until forced to at the last day. Evolution is the primary present day tool to lead us philosophically and morally away from God. On its own, it justifies our unlimited pursuit of money, superiority, material possessions, power, aggressive wars, lack of care for the poor. It provides a rationale for abortion and euthanasia. It supports the idea of a god as a blind watchmaker, if he exists. If evolution can convince us to deny that God created everything good, and that Adam and Eve (man) were not originally responsible for sin, then Satan will be happy when people begin to think that really god is to blame for sin, not us, and that it is just and right that Jesus as god died for his own sin, and is absurd that he could pay for ours.
I am not quite so pessimistic as I sometimes sound, so I trust God will use all of this for his honor and glory. But we must not lose sight of the antithesis, of the battleground for the souls of men. People of the church have too blithely assumed that Satan is no longer active, and that our sinful nature is barely relevant. This sinful nature inclines human beings to look for an origin and solution outside of God. This is the present day struggle, which is not a new struggle. Jesus warned about all those who came to God in the last day saying: “Lord, Lord, didn’t we prophecy in your name, didn’t we cast out demons, didn’t we heal the sick” and God says to them, get away from me, you workers of lawlessness.” “Only the one who does the will of the Father in heaven will enter”. This warning is always in my mind.
John
Posted in: My Banner Article
Roger, you are very close to understanding the truth. The central teaching of Jesus as propitiation you have stated well, but then seem to say that Jesus was just a good teacher. When I mention God, or Jesus, since they are the same, it is only for aspect or emphasis, not for distinction. As for works, its not that they count for nothing at all. They have their rewards as Jesus often said. But they do count for nothing in terms of eliminating guilt. The thief on the cross was saved in spite of not having an opportunity to do any works after his faith, and after his repentance. His guilt was not removed by his own doing, but only by God's grace, by the grace of Jesus Christ. If works were required, he could not have been saved.
Posted in: My Banner Article
Edwin, you suggest that God brought the world into its present physical condition thru evolutionary processes. This appears to be a faith statement on your part. Since you don't say that your idea of evolution is different than the general theory of evolution as proposed by Darwin, Dawkins, et.al., then it is necessary that you have an explanation for how and why God is in control of this process. Evolution was promoted both before and after Darwin as an explanation that could eliminate God in the equation; it was not promoted as a way of honoring God. So you would need to explain how it honors God, and how it is indicated by scripture, and how biology/geology/paleontology proves it, and how this demonstrates God. What evidence do you have for an endpoint? How do you know that human beings are the endpoint... according to the theory, they could just as well be an intermediate inferior step towards the progression of something better. In a way, this is what Hitler proposed in terms of racial superiority, that one race could be superior to another. Why was he wrong?
So, if God is playing a role... then what role is God playing? Is your idea of this role consistent with who God is, how he has revealed himself in scripture? When we think of the natural laws of physics, mathematics, such as gravity and consistency of numbers and objects, we see God as a God of order, of beauty, symmetry. Evolutionary theory would see God as a God of disorder, randomness, accidents, death and destruction and survival. If this is how God created, then what does the world need to be renewed from? What does it need to be saved from?
I note that you did not address the fact that scientific evidence/knowledge is indicating less and less support for evolution over time, as I noted in the example of human and chimp genome dissimilarities. What would it take for you to lose your faith in evolution?
John
Posted in: My Banner Article
In a court of law, there are usually experts on both sides. This is also true in this case. Just as you and Edwin, two non-experts, have decided to follow a certain path without any knowledge to back it up, so even scientists often do the same. The geologists follow the path of the paleontologists, and paleontologists use an apparent "expert" opinion by a geneticist, while the geneticist follows a statement or two from a fossil expert. In the meantime, their own interpretations are colored by their assumptions, the pre-conceived notions about what is the most likely interpretation. For that reason, supposed experts in fossils have made huge mistakes of interpretation of various fossils, such as calling a tooth a neanderthal tooth and falsely building a whole theory around it, when in fact it was a pig's tooth, as confirmed by an anatomist. When you say you will trust the experts, I say you don't know what you are talking about. You don't know who the experts are, nor do you know if indeed they are truly experts, nor do you distinguish in what they are expert at. Even experts make mistakes, as identified by other experts. Experts are not infallible, and this has been shown over and over again in the field of evolutionary interpretation.
Every PhD is considered an expert legally. Yet they can disagree with each other, and often do. This book called "Evolution's Achilles Heels" is written by nine experts, nine PhDs, in subjects ranging from paleontology to geology, to mechanical engineering, to physical chemistry, to nuclear physics, to genetics. They point out the fatal flaws for evolution in a reasonable, comprehensive, understandable way. They are able to do this because they are not locked into the prevailing evolutionary mindset, although most of them were evolutionists at one time.
Throughout evolutionary science, expert opinions have changed, vacillated, and repented. Few evolutionists still follow more than half of Darwin's conclusions, because they have been proved false. Many previous assumptions about sediment being laid down by wind, are changing into the idea that sediments were laid down by water, not wind. Evolutionist assumptions about uniformitarianism are changing into a recognition of the necessity for catastrophism which is dramatically different than earlier "expert" assumptions. So, you have a choice: you can follow the wrong experts, or the right experts. Or you can realize that you should follow the truth, rather than people. (The blind leading the blind... lemmings falling off a cliff... if everyone jumps off a bridge, will you?.... etc., etc.)
Posted in: Who Is the Living God?
Great article!
Posted in: What Do We Want from The Banner?
Scripture asks us, no tells us, to defend the faith and contend for the faith. (Jude) To put on the full armor of God. In that sense we mount the ramparts. The struggle is the same as it has always been, between following God and following the world. We like to do both, but it doesn't work; it was the downfall of both Israel and Judah, and led to the decline of the roman cath church, which led to the reformation.
The reformed roots were to bring God's people back to scripture, rather than to man's opinions. We are to be reformed from a life of sin and separation from God, towards a life of repentance and consecration towards God, using scripture as God's word, as our guide. Accomodating to worldly living is not being reformed. Being reformed is informing ourselves and others how the world should be transformed in its living if it desired to follow Christ. Fundamentalism is a worldly concept, not worthy of comment. Being a radical christian means dedicating all of life to God, not trying to accomodate our desire to be like the world.
When we have difficult questions, which we always will, they should be answered in a scriptural and reformed way, and not given the credence which caused the problem in the first place. For example, since there are so many divorces, should we have an article in the banner saying that since there are so many divorces, that probably that is a normal state of affairs, which we should have a special ceremony for? or should we have an article advising us to reform our lives and attitudes in such a way as to reduce the number of divorces?
A Banner that denigrates the basic confessions and supports immoral living has nothing to say to us that the world is not already saying. If it continues to do that, it will cease to be a christian magazine, much less a reformed magazine. The mandate of the Banner is not to imitate the Washington Post or the Toronto Star. It is not to create controversy. It is not to provide both sides of every issue as if both sides are always valid. Rather, it is to be a witness to Christ, to contend for the faith, explain the milk and the meat of the gospel, and to help us put on the full armor of God.
Posted in: What Do We Want from The Banner?
Isaac's example is clear. His father sent a servant to get a wife for him. His union was anticipated and publicly approved and acknowledged. It was acknowledged as marriage, a permanent committment. No one questioned whether this was a trial period, or a partnership of temporary convenience. It is our lack of understanding of marriage that sometimes creates the issue, especially when we have cohabitation as an imitation of the world's view of sex and marriage.
It is not primarily the state that validates marriage, nor even the church. Instead it is the public and private committment for marriage until death do us part that is the marriage. The state and the church facilitate this committment, and consolidate and support this committment. But when young cohabiting people deny they are married, or fail to announce their marriage committment in some public way, they are simply indicating a lack of committment, a lack of marriage. If they are committed, they ought to use every means at their disposal to support that committment. They should not leave their committment in question. Instead, they are reserving the right to renege. This is not the way of christian living, but the way of the world, and should not be supported by the church.
Posted in: What Do We Want from The Banner?
Or, the sex act is adultery, or fornication.
Posted in: What Do We Want from The Banner?
David Feddes raised some very excellent points relative to the politics of selecting banner editors, editorial committees, synodical oversight, and the banner purpose. I think the comment about Canadian vs USA staff is not so pertinent, since if all editors had been USA but equally provocative, the problems would have remained. On the other hand, Ken Bakker's comments are written in a barely acceptable fashion as has been pointed out, since they appear to defend the indefensible. If this magazine goes to every home on the involuntary membership dollar, then it ought to uphold the confessions and scripture. These two questionable articles clearly did not do so. Furthermore, the ten years of editorship has not in fact been without "issues", as David pointed out with regard to the "don't be so sure" article.
While I have suggested that we forgive Bob DeMoor for his indiscretion in the two inflammatory articles, I was again put off by the title "where have they all gone?", relating again to the homosex issue. It would be interesting to use the same title for an article on where the great majority of people have left for other reasons, including acceptance of women in office, crc apparent acceptance of homosex, acceptance of premarital sex, and questioning of primary doctrines from Genesis. How many left because being upset with the statements made by John Suk? How many left for other reasons related to lack of orthodoxy, and ignoring of scripture? With a general decline since 1992, it is becoming apparent that many denominational statements and positions are driving crc people either to more orthodox reformed churches because they perceive a better correlation to scripture there, or to anabaptist churches because they sense a better committment to christian living there. Traditional social crc members will likely remain because of their primary committment to their heritage, social situation, family relationships, but yet they will decline. Only a primary commitment to scripture, to God and Christ above all, and to Christian living in both personal and communal aspects, will provide motivation to remain with the denomination. Thus these types of banner articles serve only to drive people away, with no beneficial side effect, since they also separate people who remain, away from God and from His Will.
Forgiveness for the publishing of two inflammatory articles implies repentance and a renewed sense of discretion with regard to the implications of titles, articles, and the way they are written. Without that discretion well applied, crc members will often feel like prisoners of the system, implicitly maligned by perverse statements having the "apparent" blessing of an involuntary publication funded by their church tax dollars.
Posted in: What Do We Want from The Banner?
I would also suggest that the banner withdraw from all magazine competitions regarding various article categories (I forget the name of the association or award committee), since review by such an organization has led to awards for some articles that I think should not even have been in the magazine, and such type of "peer" review can lead to a perversion of the intent and method of various articles and editorial content. The only review that matters is what God has said about it, and that should be interpreted by the denomination, not by some outside organization which has standards outside of and not approved by crc confessions, nor by scripture.
Posted in: Storytelling as Relationship Building
Jesus. The Greatest Story ever told. And we believe the story. And we believe Jesus.
Posted in: What Do We Want from The Banner?
Sexual intercourse is part of marriage. But it is also part of fornication. It is the committment and promise that indicates which is which.