To some degree what you say here makes sense, and I agree. But still, many place a lot of trust in the leaders and official statements and publications of their church as to how to interpret scripture. Perhaps not technically innocent, but still not considering themselves expert or with more knowledge than their leaders, and thus I say they are innocent. Just as Jesus said of those who crucified him: "forgive them for they know not what they do".... you think they did not know they were crucifying Him?
John Kralt, since the article in question is in the denominational magazine, which members are virtually forced to accept, then this discussion certainly does not break the rules. Every transgression or problem ought to be dealt with at the level that it is promolgated. While a "private" sin ought to be dealt with as privately as possible, this is a public and denomination wide contradiction of confessions, subscription, and profession of faith. Regardless of who actually deals with it, it absolutely requires a public announcement or knowledge of how it is dealt with. Discipline is done as much for the sake of the church as it is for the sake of the individual. That's exactly why Annanias and Sapphira received the consequences they did. And that's why apostle Paul publicly rebuked Peter to his face, and publicized the discussion. If this is not dealt with, it will lead to an eventual deterioration. Those churches who do not defend the faith, are indicating that they really do not think it is that important. They are like those identified in Jeremiah 7, who wish to worship both God and mammon. We are all susceptible to that, and we all need to admonish one another in those situations. I think Philip Westra has made some very good points in his post.
Stanley, are there not many aspects to our spiritual health? Yesterday's semon mentioned a phrase: "Calm seas do not make for strong sailors." Complacency and apathy are very toxic for spiritual health, even though there may be a feeling of ease. Your feeling of the impact on your spiritual health while reading this discussion is very real. Perhaps you can understand that others have that same feeling of toxicity and depression not when they read this thread, but when they read Edwin Walhout's article?
For those who want to avoid the real work of the church, discussing the Belhar would be a good way to do this. By now, it is easy to see that we could affirm the intent of the Belhar, and receive it for information as a statement by another denomination in another space and time. It could easily be regarded in a similar position to the Westminster Confession and other confessions and statements that we do not need to "adopt" in any official manner. Getting back to scripture would be better, rather than adding confessions and statements that will not be given even the declining amount of attention presently given to our existing confessions.
A much simpler and more pertinent statement would be that all people of all languages and nations are called to serve and praise God, and that we should help one another to do so by loving one another as Christ loved us. (read the epistle of I John)
From a personal point of view, when I thought that this article was merely on line and not in print, then I thought we could tolerate his article, but when I just saw it in print, going to every innocent household, I realized the implications were much greater, and this has passed the point of being charitable and patient. (with friends like this in our church, who needs enemies?)
Richard, I agree mostly with what you said in the previous post (the one before that...). I love to discuss, but I also know that discussion of the confessions of another denomination is not really the main work of the church. Richard, yes, theology is important. Most confessions were born out of struggle, in the midst of the struggle. The belhar is talking about a struggle that is virtually over, and a struggle where society and government are already leading and have led for some time. On the other hand, the creation/evolution debate/struggle is more relevant, and needs more attention, because raw evolutionary theory justifies racism, and justifies treating less capable and less fit people and anyone "different" as of less worth. Racism is a symptom, of which a lack of love and a lack of obedience, and in some cases a belief in evolution are the cause. Good theology will get at the cause.
But I would not ask for the church to make a new confession which makes a statement on evolution, since our confessions have already declared scripture to be authoritative, and have declared God the good creator, man the fallen sinner. At this point, the real work is not to make another confession, but to uphold what we have. The real work is to support those who want to work in the field of creation science, since they are being more diligent in upholding the confessions.
The real work of the church is not making new confessions, but is living them out. The real work of the church is living by the authority and guidance of scripture, depending on God, and trusting His Spirit. Confessions of faith guide us in our belief, but only our personal confession and repentance can change us, by God's grace and spirit and power.
Confessions of faith may unite us, or may separate us, but certainly will not stop church shopping in this day and age. Unity, reconciliation and justice are indeed very important, but they must cross confessional boundaries, not wait for a new confession to be written or adopted. I think the confessions are very important yes, and I agree the proposal to add a new confession is no small thing, but I do not think at this point the belhar will help us in any significant way, and it has a high potential to harm us. So I would suggest to accept it for information, express appreciation of the circumstances in which it was written, and leave it for the church that wrote and adopted it, to live it out in the context of scripture and the context of their environs.
We ought to put ourselves to more productive use, and deal with the issues that are really the causes of present-day problems and faithlessness within our churches. It bears repeating that it is no use adopting another confession that can be conveniently ignored by so many.
Naturally, John K, you are entitled to your opinion. But is "entitlement" really the issue? Entitled by whom? Human beings are "entitled" to be unbelievers, but of what use is it? Why do we focus so often on "entitlement"?
The real issue is not "entitlement", but being true to scripture, and true to your faith. I agree with Calvin that some people are inclined to reject what they do not know or understand. I also agree with Calvin, that we should not forbid scientists from working because we are afraid of some new knowledge. But you have not drawn a connection between this statement and our present discussion... what I mean is that no one is saying that we should not do science. So I think this is a red herring. What some of us are saying is that perhaps science is not being done well; that conclusions are being drawn which do not have substantive proof.
Furthermore, are you implying that Calvin would agree with Walhout? That there is no original sin; that no original Adam and Eve existed; that God did not declare everything good? That God did not make a promise to Adam and Eve that their seed would crush the head of the serpent? What exactly are you implying?
When you state that things that Paul stated went way over the head of Peter, did you get that idea from scripture? Is that really what he said?
When you say that all you need to know is that Christ is your saviour, what is it you are being saved from? your sin? your sinful nature? But what if your "sin" is merely an outworking of the supposed "natural" evolutionistic tendencies to survival? Why would you be redeemed from that? And you say that Christ redeems the whole creation... but why does the creation need to be redeemed? what's wrong with it? How do you know? What makes your beliefs different from someone who says that man is "naturally good"?
It is my view that these views are fundamental, not peripheral. They are basic to our understanding of ourselves, of creation, and of the creator/redeemer. Does that mean that people should not be investigating fossils, and starlight, and planets, and genetics, and different types of rock, or the sequences they are found in? No, all investigation is legitimate, but our interpretation is colored by our assumptions, and we do not serve the greek or roman gods, but we serve the true God. We know the true God through scripture, not thru the imaginations of our minds, nor thru the wistful desires of our heart. And we know God thru the majesty and order and magnificence of creation, not thru the supposed random accidentalness and ferocious survival instinct and desperation to survive, which if it was the dominating principle certainly would make it useless and meaningless to love God and our neighbor, wouldn't it.
I think this issue is well worth discussing. We need to know how to defend against such statements as Walhout makes. The problem is that Walhout proposed it and gave it the appearance of a valid christian approach, which is highly, highly questionable, and certainly should not have been given the imprimatur of the banner podium in the way that it did.
Lubbert, you have taken this in an interesting direction. "materialistic, positivistic, scientific axioms..." hmmm. They are all much the same, aren't they? but my position is not based strictly on materialism, nor positivism, which exclude other aspects of life and reality. My position is merely that there ought not to be a substantive contradiction between material things and our understanding of God's power and how God works in the creation that He created. Therefore, when Jesus fed the 5000, I believe this to be real and material, but not originating from a material and physical origin. Thus it is not a normally replicatable activity. My position is not based at all on a materialist point of view, even though I obviously do not deny material reality. The real issue is whether scripture means what it says. You cannot argue this away by philosophical mumbo jumbo that diverts. Are you trying to say that Adam and Eve were not material? That they were created from spiritual dust? That they were only created in the imagination of man's heart? Do you get that kind of indication from scripture?
John K, the apparent perceived absurdity of the discussion... is based on what ? It would seem obvious, and not absurd, to suggest that Jesus statements, and the rest of the new testament's references to Adam and Eve ought to be taken seriously. We do not believe in our confessions because John Calvin happens to agree with them, do we? Is it not that Calvin agrees with them, because they are true? "It is not true because it is in scripture, but rather, it is in scripture because it is true."
HC 1 is a good Q/A. But I have begun to wonder recently whether we ever get past it, sometimes. What does it mean that we do not belong to ourselves... how does the rest of the HC explain that to us? What do we know about the rest of the HC? Why do we bother to learn the sections on the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer? How do we know that HC 1 is not just a bunch of nice sounding words, but that it really impacts our lives?
For someone who was going to "bow out", John K, you are adding many comments.... Lubbert, I disagree with your perspective. It is also difficult to respond to your vague generalities rather than to specifics, since they simply sound like judgements, rather than true analysis. At least Walhout talked about specifics, and not vague generalities. However, thanks for making your point.
I read the first chapter of your book. I think technically it was well-written. However, I suspect your book simply explains and supports the status quo. Which is okay I suppose for those who enjoy the status quo.
Where I have problems with the church order are some of its inconsistencies, where it contradicts itself. For example, it states all the offices are equal in importance and then proceeds to have about 20 articles or more on the office of "minister of the word", and one article shared between elders and deacons. I get the impression sometimes that the church order is as much a professional document for maintaining the professionalism of "ministering" as it is for order in the church.
Many of the ideas in the church order seem to be predicated on worldly hierarchies and institutions, rather than on a careful examination of scripture. This is no less true today than when it was written, although the worldly priorities have changed and have thus affected the church order subsequently.
The idea of distinguishing ministerial associates from ministers in terms of function, and the underlying impact on retirement, pension funds etc., distort the true roles and significance of pastoring, preaching, leading, teaching.
The sometimes duplicity in the church order, where for example it identifies "ministers" as leading the sacraments, without any biblical or scriptural warrant for doing so, and yet technically the order does not mandate or forbid elders or deacons from leading these sacraments...., but the impression is left to the point that people think it is another rule.
The unscriptural, or at least very contrived reasoning, that limits elders from presenting the blessing or benediction....
The regulation upon regulation, precept upon precept, that imposes a hierarchical requirement (rather than a suggestion or an opportunity) for congregations to require the blessing of classis for decisions that ought to be their's alone.
There is more that could be said, but I find that I had more respect for the church order as a christian document before I studied it closely, than afterwards.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
To some degree what you say here makes sense, and I agree. But still, many place a lot of trust in the leaders and official statements and publications of their church as to how to interpret scripture. Perhaps not technically innocent, but still not considering themselves expert or with more knowledge than their leaders, and thus I say they are innocent. Just as Jesus said of those who crucified him: "forgive them for they know not what they do".... you think they did not know they were crucifying Him?
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
John Kralt, since the article in question is in the denominational magazine, which members are virtually forced to accept, then this discussion certainly does not break the rules. Every transgression or problem ought to be dealt with at the level that it is promolgated. While a "private" sin ought to be dealt with as privately as possible, this is a public and denomination wide contradiction of confessions, subscription, and profession of faith. Regardless of who actually deals with it, it absolutely requires a public announcement or knowledge of how it is dealt with. Discipline is done as much for the sake of the church as it is for the sake of the individual. That's exactly why Annanias and Sapphira received the consequences they did. And that's why apostle Paul publicly rebuked Peter to his face, and publicized the discussion. If this is not dealt with, it will lead to an eventual deterioration. Those churches who do not defend the faith, are indicating that they really do not think it is that important. They are like those identified in Jeremiah 7, who wish to worship both God and mammon. We are all susceptible to that, and we all need to admonish one another in those situations. I think Philip Westra has made some very good points in his post.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
Stanley, are there not many aspects to our spiritual health? Yesterday's semon mentioned a phrase: "Calm seas do not make for strong sailors." Complacency and apathy are very toxic for spiritual health, even though there may be a feeling of ease. Your feeling of the impact on your spiritual health while reading this discussion is very real. Perhaps you can understand that others have that same feeling of toxicity and depression not when they read this thread, but when they read Edwin Walhout's article?
Posted in: Affirm the Belhar? Yes, but Not as a Doctrinal Standard
For those who want to avoid the real work of the church, discussing the Belhar would be a good way to do this. By now, it is easy to see that we could affirm the intent of the Belhar, and receive it for information as a statement by another denomination in another space and time. It could easily be regarded in a similar position to the Westminster Confession and other confessions and statements that we do not need to "adopt" in any official manner. Getting back to scripture would be better, rather than adding confessions and statements that will not be given even the declining amount of attention presently given to our existing confessions.
A much simpler and more pertinent statement would be that all people of all languages and nations are called to serve and praise God, and that we should help one another to do so by loving one another as Christ loved us. (read the epistle of I John)
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
From a personal point of view, when I thought that this article was merely on line and not in print, then I thought we could tolerate his article, but when I just saw it in print, going to every innocent household, I realized the implications were much greater, and this has passed the point of being charitable and patient. (with friends like this in our church, who needs enemies?)
Posted in: Affirm the Belhar? Yes, but Not as a Doctrinal Standard
Richard, I agree mostly with what you said in the previous post (the one before that...). I love to discuss, but I also know that discussion of the confessions of another denomination is not really the main work of the church. Richard, yes, theology is important. Most confessions were born out of struggle, in the midst of the struggle. The belhar is talking about a struggle that is virtually over, and a struggle where society and government are already leading and have led for some time. On the other hand, the creation/evolution debate/struggle is more relevant, and needs more attention, because raw evolutionary theory justifies racism, and justifies treating less capable and less fit people and anyone "different" as of less worth. Racism is a symptom, of which a lack of love and a lack of obedience, and in some cases a belief in evolution are the cause. Good theology will get at the cause.
But I would not ask for the church to make a new confession which makes a statement on evolution, since our confessions have already declared scripture to be authoritative, and have declared God the good creator, man the fallen sinner. At this point, the real work is not to make another confession, but to uphold what we have. The real work is to support those who want to work in the field of creation science, since they are being more diligent in upholding the confessions.
The real work of the church is not making new confessions, but is living them out. The real work of the church is living by the authority and guidance of scripture, depending on God, and trusting His Spirit. Confessions of faith guide us in our belief, but only our personal confession and repentance can change us, by God's grace and spirit and power.
Confessions of faith may unite us, or may separate us, but certainly will not stop church shopping in this day and age. Unity, reconciliation and justice are indeed very important, but they must cross confessional boundaries, not wait for a new confession to be written or adopted. I think the confessions are very important yes, and I agree the proposal to add a new confession is no small thing, but I do not think at this point the belhar will help us in any significant way, and it has a high potential to harm us. So I would suggest to accept it for information, express appreciation of the circumstances in which it was written, and leave it for the church that wrote and adopted it, to live it out in the context of scripture and the context of their environs.
We ought to put ourselves to more productive use, and deal with the issues that are really the causes of present-day problems and faithlessness within our churches. It bears repeating that it is no use adopting another confession that can be conveniently ignored by so many.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
Naturally, John K, you are entitled to your opinion. But is "entitlement" really the issue? Entitled by whom? Human beings are "entitled" to be unbelievers, but of what use is it? Why do we focus so often on "entitlement"?
The real issue is not "entitlement", but being true to scripture, and true to your faith. I agree with Calvin that some people are inclined to reject what they do not know or understand. I also agree with Calvin, that we should not forbid scientists from working because we are afraid of some new knowledge. But you have not drawn a connection between this statement and our present discussion... what I mean is that no one is saying that we should not do science. So I think this is a red herring. What some of us are saying is that perhaps science is not being done well; that conclusions are being drawn which do not have substantive proof.
Furthermore, are you implying that Calvin would agree with Walhout? That there is no original sin; that no original Adam and Eve existed; that God did not declare everything good? That God did not make a promise to Adam and Eve that their seed would crush the head of the serpent? What exactly are you implying?
When you state that things that Paul stated went way over the head of Peter, did you get that idea from scripture? Is that really what he said?
When you say that all you need to know is that Christ is your saviour, what is it you are being saved from? your sin? your sinful nature? But what if your "sin" is merely an outworking of the supposed "natural" evolutionistic tendencies to survival? Why would you be redeemed from that? And you say that Christ redeems the whole creation... but why does the creation need to be redeemed? what's wrong with it? How do you know? What makes your beliefs different from someone who says that man is "naturally good"?
It is my view that these views are fundamental, not peripheral. They are basic to our understanding of ourselves, of creation, and of the creator/redeemer. Does that mean that people should not be investigating fossils, and starlight, and planets, and genetics, and different types of rock, or the sequences they are found in? No, all investigation is legitimate, but our interpretation is colored by our assumptions, and we do not serve the greek or roman gods, but we serve the true God. We know the true God through scripture, not thru the imaginations of our minds, nor thru the wistful desires of our heart. And we know God thru the majesty and order and magnificence of creation, not thru the supposed random accidentalness and ferocious survival instinct and desperation to survive, which if it was the dominating principle certainly would make it useless and meaningless to love God and our neighbor, wouldn't it.
I think this issue is well worth discussing. We need to know how to defend against such statements as Walhout makes. The problem is that Walhout proposed it and gave it the appearance of a valid christian approach, which is highly, highly questionable, and certainly should not have been given the imprimatur of the banner podium in the way that it did.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
Lubbert, you have taken this in an interesting direction. "materialistic, positivistic, scientific axioms..." hmmm. They are all much the same, aren't they? but my position is not based strictly on materialism, nor positivism, which exclude other aspects of life and reality. My position is merely that there ought not to be a substantive contradiction between material things and our understanding of God's power and how God works in the creation that He created. Therefore, when Jesus fed the 5000, I believe this to be real and material, but not originating from a material and physical origin. Thus it is not a normally replicatable activity. My position is not based at all on a materialist point of view, even though I obviously do not deny material reality. The real issue is whether scripture means what it says. You cannot argue this away by philosophical mumbo jumbo that diverts. Are you trying to say that Adam and Eve were not material? That they were created from spiritual dust? That they were only created in the imagination of man's heart? Do you get that kind of indication from scripture?
John K, the apparent perceived absurdity of the discussion... is based on what ? It would seem obvious, and not absurd, to suggest that Jesus statements, and the rest of the new testament's references to Adam and Eve ought to be taken seriously. We do not believe in our confessions because John Calvin happens to agree with them, do we? Is it not that Calvin agrees with them, because they are true? "It is not true because it is in scripture, but rather, it is in scripture because it is true."
Posted in: Matt 18:15
Good discussion!
Posted in: Reciting HC Q&A 1 During Worship Service
HC 1 is a good Q/A. But I have begun to wonder recently whether we ever get past it, sometimes. What does it mean that we do not belong to ourselves... how does the rest of the HC explain that to us? What do we know about the rest of the HC? Why do we bother to learn the sections on the Ten Commandments and the Lord's Prayer? How do we know that HC 1 is not just a bunch of nice sounding words, but that it really impacts our lives?
HC 1 is a good start, but how do we finish?
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
For someone who was going to "bow out", John K, you are adding many comments.... Lubbert, I disagree with your perspective. It is also difficult to respond to your vague generalities rather than to specifics, since they simply sound like judgements, rather than true analysis. At least Walhout talked about specifics, and not vague generalities. However, thanks for making your point.
Posted in: CRC Church Order Commentary
I read the first chapter of your book. I think technically it was well-written. However, I suspect your book simply explains and supports the status quo. Which is okay I suppose for those who enjoy the status quo.
Where I have problems with the church order are some of its inconsistencies, where it contradicts itself. For example, it states all the offices are equal in importance and then proceeds to have about 20 articles or more on the office of "minister of the word", and one article shared between elders and deacons. I get the impression sometimes that the church order is as much a professional document for maintaining the professionalism of "ministering" as it is for order in the church.
Many of the ideas in the church order seem to be predicated on worldly hierarchies and institutions, rather than on a careful examination of scripture. This is no less true today than when it was written, although the worldly priorities have changed and have thus affected the church order subsequently.
The idea of distinguishing ministerial associates from ministers in terms of function, and the underlying impact on retirement, pension funds etc., distort the true roles and significance of pastoring, preaching, leading, teaching.
The sometimes duplicity in the church order, where for example it identifies "ministers" as leading the sacraments, without any biblical or scriptural warrant for doing so, and yet technically the order does not mandate or forbid elders or deacons from leading these sacraments...., but the impression is left to the point that people think it is another rule.
The unscriptural, or at least very contrived reasoning, that limits elders from presenting the blessing or benediction....
The regulation upon regulation, precept upon precept, that imposes a hierarchical requirement (rather than a suggestion or an opportunity) for congregations to require the blessing of classis for decisions that ought to be their's alone.
There is more that could be said, but I find that I had more respect for the church order as a christian document before I studied it closely, than afterwards.