I have just finished watching a video about a talk by Dr. Jobe Martin, called the evolution of a creationist. It is fascinating! The evidence against evolution of specific animals and birds is amazing.
I must admit, I am amused by John Ks suggestion that one person could be judge jury and executioner in a case such as this. I think that is simply unreasonable hyperbole. In what way could one person in this case actually realistically be an executioner (even noting the word executioner is used as a metaphor)? I would suggest rather that an appropriate analogy would be "prosecutor". On the other hand, I agree that admonition is also a part of discipline, which it seems that Lubbert is attempting to administer to myself.... Is Lubbert also judge, jury and executioner then?
Then, supposing that the assumptions that an individual has advocated for doctrines that contradict the CRC confessions is upheld, and supposing that his supervising church does not administer discipline of any kind, what would be the solution for a denomination which is being subjected to such anti-crc doctrines? Particularly in regard to an individual leader who has formally subscribed to upholding the doctrines of the crc, as well as upholding scripture.
I think Lubbert has summarized rather well the panorama of perspectives on creation/evolution, except that #4 and #5 are virtually identical other than a nominal distinction between deism and atheism, and that #3 is not discernably different from #4 and #5 without an explanation of where God has intervened. However, he has put me into a YEC position which I have not categorically upheld, since I have maintained a possibility for a different concept of time prior to the fourth day, a fact which upsets some of my YEC friends.
The issue is not that evolution could not be compatible in some degree with scripture. The issue is that 95% of the scientific literature assumes evolution as an apriori assumption to the exclusion of the significance of God, So if Christians talk about evolution without qualifying what they mean, as far as the world is concerned, they are simply buying into the atheistic version of evolution. This leads to the conclusion that the seven mentions in the New Testament of the first Adam, are simply nonsense. Is Lubbert happy with that?
Age segregation for youth can be beneficial or harmful Joy, depending on how it fits into the overall picture within the church. It is absolutely necessary for youth and adults to worship together in order to discover the commonalities, to provide a point of communication of the gospel between generations, and to recognize that the faith of the child and the knowledge of the olders fit together to bring glory to God. But there is also a need for a type of segregation of classes in order for various ages, knowledge levels, and people types to more fully explore the gospel within their own context. For adults to go over and over the elementary milk of the gospel will not lead to their becoming more mature. For children to be immersed in Calvin's institutes or the finer points of the geological or anthropology of the history of Israel may be simply too overwhelming. So spiritual sense and common sense would indicate that there ought to be a place for both?
There are at least 25 websites which promote a non-evolutionary perspective on creation. In addition to ICR and Answers in Genesis, there are also sites such as creationresearch.org, creation.com, wazooloo.com, drdino.com, christiananswers.net, pathlights.com, origins.org, creationscience.com, creationists.org, creationism.org, and many more, including others in other countries. It's worth looking at what they have to say.
I peter 2: 19 For this finds [u]favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds [v]favor with God.
Steve, I don't know if you were referring to John Cooper or to myself in your comment. However, I just want to make clear that I do not want to adopt the Belhar as a testimony either, nor as a confession. The reason I don't want to adopt it as a testimony is a bit different than the reasons for not adopting it as a confession, although the same problems with its vague terminology and political atmosphere are still there. I think a testimony is much more personal. It ought to come out of your own personal history and your own experience. Adopting someone else's testimony just doesn't make much sense. This applies at a denominational level as much as at a personal level. Just as you or I adopting the personal testimony of Franklin Graham or Abraham Kuyper or John Calvin or John Tyndale just doesn't make sense, so for the crc to adopt the testimony of another denomination just doesn't make logical sense.
It is better simply to receive it for information, indicate perhaps some potential problems, and express appreciation for the motivation, the context and the love expressed in that testimony. Let it be theirs.
(As a side note, I would love to see more testimonies expressed by people who make profession of faith. It is a sad thing that so few do so. But it would also be sad if they simply adopted one formulaic testimony made by someone else.)
Daniel, Proverbs 26:4-5 has often been on my mind in some of these discussions. You have a point, that we need to understand context and relevance of passages in order to understand them. However, proverbs 26:4-5 does not contain two false passages, but rather, two true statements. When these two statements are put together closely, it will be easy to understand that either situation could prevail, and that we must be careful about assessing when which one is appropriate.
This highlights the fact that scripture is understood in the context of scripture. We have the same issue with "judging". Jesus said, "judge not, lest you be judged, for in the way you judge others, you yourself will also be judged". This is a practical saying, also a type of proverb, more than a command. It also seems to indicate a distinction between two types of "judging". We might judge actions, but be very careful about judging the heart. We know Jesus saying is a proverb, because obviously Jesus judged others, particularly the pharisees, and also his disciple Peter, and Paul also told the church to judge those inside the church, and made many judgemental distinctions. The epistle of John also indicated that followers of Christ would not keep sinning, etc. So this helps us to understand the context of seemingly contradictory statements. Scripture interprets scripture.
When we come to Genesis 1 and 2, how does scripture interpret this? Do we find places in scripture that contradict Genesis 1 and 2? If so, then perhaps there are some grounds for your claim. But rather, we find scripture that substantiates and builds on the veracity of Genesis 1 and 2, pretty well as it is given. Adam is indicated to be a real person in a number of places. The fall into sin is not ethereal and imaginative. Man's fallen state is indicated in the Psalms, as well as in various epistles.
If we change our understanding of the basic principles in Genesis, that God created things "good" (not randomly evil), that God created man to have dominion (not as merely another animal), that God created the first man before the first woman, that God gave a specific command to Adam and Eve, that God established consequences for their disobedience, which Christ was the fulfillment of promise to absorb those consequences, .... if we change those principles into ideas such as, "man is basically good, just needing to be separated from bad influences", or "creation does not need redemption, because it is just proceeding as it always has according to natural law", then we have changed our basic understanding of who God is, and of what our relationship to God is.
There are possibly certain interpretations of Genesis 1 and 2 that do not impact these basic theological principles. But I do not hear that discussion taking place here. Rather the entire raw theory of evolution as secularly presented in the absence of God, is being promoted and assumed, and this is the problem.
John K, it seems that you do not realize how extreme your own views are, and that the views of Edwin W are very extreme. His views do not help the church at all. When you say that we should stay out of the discipline loop, I think you are being very inconsistent, since I would argue that Ewin's column did not stay within his congregation, and therefore the discussion for discipline should not stay within that loop either. This is not about shutting down the dialogue. It is about putting the dialogue within the context of scripture and our confessions, something which Edwin W has not done, since he wants to revise scripture and our confessions, without following normal channels as prescribed for doctrinal discussions.
Lubbert, I think there was lots of Christian charity. Especially when it was only online. When it went into print into the homes of helpless innocent households, the article stepped over the line. Although it is your judgement that asking for sanction or discipline steps over the line of christian charity, it also seems obvious that this article stepped over the line of reasonableness from the perspective of scripture, confessions and committments. There were a number of people in the thread in the banner who suggested that it was heresy, the way it was written. Being deliberatively hesitant in one statement in a long article is not providing the balance that this topic deserved. The rest of it certainly was not deliberatively hesitant. Feel free to demonstrate why the statements made were not heretical or contrary to the confessions and form of subscription.
Lubbert, if it is a fallacy, then you will have to demonstrate how and why it is a fallacy in the case of Walhout. Otherwise, I will have to disagree with you.
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
I have just finished watching a video about a talk by Dr. Jobe Martin, called the evolution of a creationist. It is fascinating! The evidence against evolution of specific animals and birds is amazing.
I must admit, I am amused by John Ks suggestion that one person could be judge jury and executioner in a case such as this. I think that is simply unreasonable hyperbole. In what way could one person in this case actually realistically be an executioner (even noting the word executioner is used as a metaphor)? I would suggest rather that an appropriate analogy would be "prosecutor". On the other hand, I agree that admonition is also a part of discipline, which it seems that Lubbert is attempting to administer to myself.... Is Lubbert also judge, jury and executioner then?
Then, supposing that the assumptions that an individual has advocated for doctrines that contradict the CRC confessions is upheld, and supposing that his supervising church does not administer discipline of any kind, what would be the solution for a denomination which is being subjected to such anti-crc doctrines? Particularly in regard to an individual leader who has formally subscribed to upholding the doctrines of the crc, as well as upholding scripture.
I think Lubbert has summarized rather well the panorama of perspectives on creation/evolution, except that #4 and #5 are virtually identical other than a nominal distinction between deism and atheism, and that #3 is not discernably different from #4 and #5 without an explanation of where God has intervened. However, he has put me into a YEC position which I have not categorically upheld, since I have maintained a possibility for a different concept of time prior to the fourth day, a fact which upsets some of my YEC friends.
The issue is not that evolution could not be compatible in some degree with scripture. The issue is that 95% of the scientific literature assumes evolution as an apriori assumption to the exclusion of the significance of God, So if Christians talk about evolution without qualifying what they mean, as far as the world is concerned, they are simply buying into the atheistic version of evolution. This leads to the conclusion that the seven mentions in the New Testament of the first Adam, are simply nonsense. Is Lubbert happy with that?
Posted in: Is Modern Youth Ministry Biblical
Age segregation for youth can be beneficial or harmful Joy, depending on how it fits into the overall picture within the church. It is absolutely necessary for youth and adults to worship together in order to discover the commonalities, to provide a point of communication of the gospel between generations, and to recognize that the faith of the child and the knowledge of the olders fit together to bring glory to God. But there is also a need for a type of segregation of classes in order for various ages, knowledge levels, and people types to more fully explore the gospel within their own context. For adults to go over and over the elementary milk of the gospel will not lead to their becoming more mature. For children to be immersed in Calvin's institutes or the finer points of the geological or anthropology of the history of Israel may be simply too overwhelming. So spiritual sense and common sense would indicate that there ought to be a place for both?
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
There are at least 25 websites which promote a non-evolutionary perspective on creation. In addition to ICR and Answers in Genesis, there are also sites such as creationresearch.org, creation.com, wazooloo.com, drdino.com, christiananswers.net, pathlights.com, origins.org, creationscience.com, creationists.org, creationism.org, and many more, including others in other countries. It's worth looking at what they have to say.
Posted in: Minding Our Metaphors
I peter 2: 19 For this finds [u]favor, if for the sake of conscience toward God a person bears up under sorrows when suffering unjustly. 20 For what credit is there if, when you sin and are harshly treated, you endure it with patience? But if when you do what is right and suffer for it you patiently endure it, this finds [v]favor with God.
Doing this would reduce a lot of conflict.
Posted in: Matt 18:15
Good discussion!
Posted in: Affirm the Belhar? Yes, but Not as a Doctrinal Standard
Steve, I don't know if you were referring to John Cooper or to myself in your comment. However, I just want to make clear that I do not want to adopt the Belhar as a testimony either, nor as a confession. The reason I don't want to adopt it as a testimony is a bit different than the reasons for not adopting it as a confession, although the same problems with its vague terminology and political atmosphere are still there. I think a testimony is much more personal. It ought to come out of your own personal history and your own experience. Adopting someone else's testimony just doesn't make much sense. This applies at a denominational level as much as at a personal level. Just as you or I adopting the personal testimony of Franklin Graham or Abraham Kuyper or John Calvin or John Tyndale just doesn't make sense, so for the crc to adopt the testimony of another denomination just doesn't make logical sense.
It is better simply to receive it for information, indicate perhaps some potential problems, and express appreciation for the motivation, the context and the love expressed in that testimony. Let it be theirs.
(As a side note, I would love to see more testimonies expressed by people who make profession of faith. It is a sad thing that so few do so. But it would also be sad if they simply adopted one formulaic testimony made by someone else.)
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
Interesting perspective, Ryan. Make believe huh?
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
Daniel, Proverbs 26:4-5 has often been on my mind in some of these discussions. You have a point, that we need to understand context and relevance of passages in order to understand them. However, proverbs 26:4-5 does not contain two false passages, but rather, two true statements. When these two statements are put together closely, it will be easy to understand that either situation could prevail, and that we must be careful about assessing when which one is appropriate.
This highlights the fact that scripture is understood in the context of scripture. We have the same issue with "judging". Jesus said, "judge not, lest you be judged, for in the way you judge others, you yourself will also be judged". This is a practical saying, also a type of proverb, more than a command. It also seems to indicate a distinction between two types of "judging". We might judge actions, but be very careful about judging the heart. We know Jesus saying is a proverb, because obviously Jesus judged others, particularly the pharisees, and also his disciple Peter, and Paul also told the church to judge those inside the church, and made many judgemental distinctions. The epistle of John also indicated that followers of Christ would not keep sinning, etc. So this helps us to understand the context of seemingly contradictory statements. Scripture interprets scripture.
When we come to Genesis 1 and 2, how does scripture interpret this? Do we find places in scripture that contradict Genesis 1 and 2? If so, then perhaps there are some grounds for your claim. But rather, we find scripture that substantiates and builds on the veracity of Genesis 1 and 2, pretty well as it is given. Adam is indicated to be a real person in a number of places. The fall into sin is not ethereal and imaginative. Man's fallen state is indicated in the Psalms, as well as in various epistles.
If we change our understanding of the basic principles in Genesis, that God created things "good" (not randomly evil), that God created man to have dominion (not as merely another animal), that God created the first man before the first woman, that God gave a specific command to Adam and Eve, that God established consequences for their disobedience, which Christ was the fulfillment of promise to absorb those consequences, .... if we change those principles into ideas such as, "man is basically good, just needing to be separated from bad influences", or "creation does not need redemption, because it is just proceeding as it always has according to natural law", then we have changed our basic understanding of who God is, and of what our relationship to God is.
There are possibly certain interpretations of Genesis 1 and 2 that do not impact these basic theological principles. But I do not hear that discussion taking place here. Rather the entire raw theory of evolution as secularly presented in the absence of God, is being promoted and assumed, and this is the problem.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
John K, it seems that you do not realize how extreme your own views are, and that the views of Edwin W are very extreme. His views do not help the church at all. When you say that we should stay out of the discipline loop, I think you are being very inconsistent, since I would argue that Ewin's column did not stay within his congregation, and therefore the discussion for discipline should not stay within that loop either. This is not about shutting down the dialogue. It is about putting the dialogue within the context of scripture and our confessions, something which Edwin W has not done, since he wants to revise scripture and our confessions, without following normal channels as prescribed for doctrinal discussions.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
Lubbert, I think there was lots of Christian charity. Especially when it was only online. When it went into print into the homes of helpless innocent households, the article stepped over the line. Although it is your judgement that asking for sanction or discipline steps over the line of christian charity, it also seems obvious that this article stepped over the line of reasonableness from the perspective of scripture, confessions and committments. There were a number of people in the thread in the banner who suggested that it was heresy, the way it was written. Being deliberatively hesitant in one statement in a long article is not providing the balance that this topic deserved. The rest of it certainly was not deliberatively hesitant. Feel free to demonstrate why the statements made were not heretical or contrary to the confessions and form of subscription.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
Lubbert, if it is a fallacy, then you will have to demonstrate how and why it is a fallacy in the case of Walhout. Otherwise, I will have to disagree with you.
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.