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.
No, it wouldn't be fruitful to try to suggest that Walhout's statements were not contrary to our confessions or to scripture. It couldn't be done. It does not make me happy to suggest that someone (anyone) should be found to lose his credentials or even to ask for an apology, especially an older gentleman who is "retired". I find it sad. and disgraceful. and sad that it is necessary to even suggest it. Of course, you are allowed to say it may not be charitable. Which is a judgement, and it is a judgement that might seem to forbid people from asking for truth or conformity to confessions by those who should know better. The problem is that this statement/article went to innocent helpless homes in our crc churches. The problem is that if it is possible to make such statements in such a way without consequences, then is there any point at all of elders being enjoined to engage in "being firm and consistent in rebuke and discipline"? Is there any real point in examining pastors, or in examining those who wish to make profession of faith? What is the point? What does it really matter what they believe? What does it mean on page 995 (hymnal) where it says that a minister "must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it."?
Lubbert, again I disagree. I am not lumping people together who should not be lumped together. In fact, on the Banner thread on this topic, Andy Luchys seems to be in a different camp.
I agree with you that there are different possibilities, yet, I believe it makes sense to defend the possibility that one thinks is most likely, not those that are less likely. My supposedly "singular" notion of the natural world is not singularly held by me, but is held by many others as well.
Frankly, you have not well explained your point on fallacy. You claim that defending a particular viewpoint merely on the basis of material observation means that walhout and I have the same paradigm, even though different interpretations. I have already disagreed with this in detail in response to your point, which you seem not to be aware of. I have raised objections to his assumptions based on his paradigm, even though it is not my primary paradigm. My paradigm is that God can do whatever He wants to, and that it is entirely legitimate for God to do so, no matter how "unnatural" it may seem to be. But if someone suggests a theory that contradicts the more obvious writing of scripture (taking a virtually nonsensical figurative approach to scripture), then it is entirely legitimate to bring up material and physical objections to such a theory, which is what I have done.
Merely arguing towards/within someone else's paradigm, does not mean that I have adopted an identical paradigm.
Maybe the understanding of this phrase underlies the problem in the discussion we are having. What does it mean that the church is reforming? What are we reformed by? What are we reformed to? I think we should understand that this phrase does NOT mean, to be reformed by the world. Instead, it means to be reformed by scripture, and by the Spirit of God. It does not mean that the church is to be reformed to worldly standards or beliefs, but rather to service of God and our neighbor in love that honors God as creator, saviour and lord, and honors scripture as God's word.
"Dr. Case-Winters suggests that the phrase Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda has been misused or misinterpreted by Reformed Christians on both ends of the theological spectrum. The Reformers understanding of the phrase was neither conservative nor liberal, but “radical, in the sense of returning to ‘root.’” They believed that the church had become corrupt and wanted to return to a more authentic faith and life. “The cultural assumption of the Reformers’ day,” she notes, “was that what is older is better.” (Presbyterian Hist Soc News)
b-ver and Doug Vande Griend, I just want to say thankyou for your involvement and participation in these issues. The broad background of relevant information and your astute analyses on this issue as well as the evolution and climate change issues are shedding light in the midst of murky waters. You are like a breath of fresh air. May God use this discussion to direct our paths towards focussing on our main mission and on our unity in the light of His Word, and by the power of His Spirit.
Lubbert, the "charity" ace card gets pulled out in a way that removes any possibility for understanding reasonable objections. Walhout wrote about this in a way that clearly indicates that he believes that our basic doctrines will change in the future. There are many who see that. Most commentators on the banner thread have indicated that. If we are misunderstanding him, then he needs to clarify it.
If a former minister or an elder can make comments like this about basic doctrines, then it seems they are not exploring all the options. If they can make comments like this with impunity, then there is no point in having classical examinations for ministerial candidates, and there is no point in having elder examinations of those who wish to make profession of faith. What is the point of having those "examinations", and what is the point to agreeing to the form of subscription, and what is the point of making a profession of faith that subscribes to the three forms of unity, if you don't have any intention of abiding or holding to them. Is that not a form of deception? Is that not the heart of deceit? Please tell me what it is.
Charity means love for those who place confidence in office bearers. That means that charity demands extra responsibility from "teachers, preachers, etc." because of the potential impact of what they do and say, on the rank and file. Sending comments like this into helpless innocent homes through a denomination support publication, where individuals barely have the right to even refuse the publication, is not charitable, and creates dissension and discord. Charity demands a response of accountability.
Furthermore, if the basis of our sinful condition is torn down (as it appears to be by Walhout), then what is the basis for a requirement that we need to be charitable? Evolution certainly does not require charity from us? If God used evolution to create us, and created us with the competitive survival of the fittest pre-eminent instinct, then it would be unreasonable for God to ask us to be charitable, wouldn't it?
"Innocent" households are those who do not decide based on any evidence, but decide on the basis of "authority" or perceived authority which they attribute to those they assume they can trust. That is why those who presume to teach must be doubly aware of their responsibility.
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.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
No, it wouldn't be fruitful to try to suggest that Walhout's statements were not contrary to our confessions or to scripture. It couldn't be done. It does not make me happy to suggest that someone (anyone) should be found to lose his credentials or even to ask for an apology, especially an older gentleman who is "retired". I find it sad. and disgraceful. and sad that it is necessary to even suggest it. Of course, you are allowed to say it may not be charitable. Which is a judgement, and it is a judgement that might seem to forbid people from asking for truth or conformity to confessions by those who should know better. The problem is that this statement/article went to innocent helpless homes in our crc churches. The problem is that if it is possible to make such statements in such a way without consequences, then is there any point at all of elders being enjoined to engage in "being firm and consistent in rebuke and discipline"? Is there any real point in examining pastors, or in examining those who wish to make profession of faith? What is the point? What does it really matter what they believe? What does it mean on page 995 (hymnal) where it says that a minister "must hold firmly to the trustworthy message as it has been taught, so that he can encourage others by sound doctrine and refute those who oppose it."?
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
Lubbert, again I disagree. I am not lumping people together who should not be lumped together. In fact, on the Banner thread on this topic, Andy Luchys seems to be in a different camp.
I agree with you that there are different possibilities, yet, I believe it makes sense to defend the possibility that one thinks is most likely, not those that are less likely. My supposedly "singular" notion of the natural world is not singularly held by me, but is held by many others as well.
Frankly, you have not well explained your point on fallacy. You claim that defending a particular viewpoint merely on the basis of material observation means that walhout and I have the same paradigm, even though different interpretations. I have already disagreed with this in detail in response to your point, which you seem not to be aware of. I have raised objections to his assumptions based on his paradigm, even though it is not my primary paradigm. My paradigm is that God can do whatever He wants to, and that it is entirely legitimate for God to do so, no matter how "unnatural" it may seem to be. But if someone suggests a theory that contradicts the more obvious writing of scripture (taking a virtually nonsensical figurative approach to scripture), then it is entirely legitimate to bring up material and physical objections to such a theory, which is what I have done.
Merely arguing towards/within someone else's paradigm, does not mean that I have adopted an identical paradigm.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
"Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda"
Maybe the understanding of this phrase underlies the problem in the discussion we are having. What does it mean that the church is reforming? What are we reformed by? What are we reformed to? I think we should understand that this phrase does NOT mean, to be reformed by the world. Instead, it means to be reformed by scripture, and by the Spirit of God. It does not mean that the church is to be reformed to worldly standards or beliefs, but rather to service of God and our neighbor in love that honors God as creator, saviour and lord, and honors scripture as God's word.
"Dr. Case-Winters suggests that the phrase Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda has been misused or misinterpreted by Reformed Christians on both ends of the theological spectrum. The Reformers understanding of the phrase was neither conservative nor liberal, but “radical, in the sense of returning to ‘root.’” They believed that the church had become corrupt and wanted to return to a more authentic faith and life. “The cultural assumption of the Reformers’ day,” she notes, “was that what is older is better.” (Presbyterian Hist Soc News)
Posted in: Affirm the Belhar? Yes, but Not as a Doctrinal Standard
b-ver and Doug Vande Griend, I just want to say thankyou for your involvement and participation in these issues. The broad background of relevant information and your astute analyses on this issue as well as the evolution and climate change issues are shedding light in the midst of murky waters. You are like a breath of fresh air. May God use this discussion to direct our paths towards focussing on our main mission and on our unity in the light of His Word, and by the power of His Spirit.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
Lubbert, the "charity" ace card gets pulled out in a way that removes any possibility for understanding reasonable objections. Walhout wrote about this in a way that clearly indicates that he believes that our basic doctrines will change in the future. There are many who see that. Most commentators on the banner thread have indicated that. If we are misunderstanding him, then he needs to clarify it.
If a former minister or an elder can make comments like this about basic doctrines, then it seems they are not exploring all the options. If they can make comments like this with impunity, then there is no point in having classical examinations for ministerial candidates, and there is no point in having elder examinations of those who wish to make profession of faith. What is the point of having those "examinations", and what is the point to agreeing to the form of subscription, and what is the point of making a profession of faith that subscribes to the three forms of unity, if you don't have any intention of abiding or holding to them. Is that not a form of deception? Is that not the heart of deceit? Please tell me what it is.
Charity means love for those who place confidence in office bearers. That means that charity demands extra responsibility from "teachers, preachers, etc." because of the potential impact of what they do and say, on the rank and file. Sending comments like this into helpless innocent homes through a denomination support publication, where individuals barely have the right to even refuse the publication, is not charitable, and creates dissension and discord. Charity demands a response of accountability.
Furthermore, if the basis of our sinful condition is torn down (as it appears to be by Walhout), then what is the basis for a requirement that we need to be charitable? Evolution certainly does not require charity from us? If God used evolution to create us, and created us with the competitive survival of the fittest pre-eminent instinct, then it would be unreasonable for God to ask us to be charitable, wouldn't it?
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
"Innocent" households are those who do not decide based on any evidence, but decide on the basis of "authority" or perceived authority which they attribute to those they assume they can trust. That is why those who presume to teach must be doubly aware of their responsibility.