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.
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?
Steve, I appreciate that you don't want to be racist, nor perceived as racist, and that you want people to know you don't want to be racist, and that you don't want reformed churches to be perceived as racist. I understand that.
However, the Belhar is political. It is political because it deals with the political issues of racism, the power of the state, the power of the church, the ideas of equality and rights. But our discussion of it is also political, because we assume that because reformed churches in South Africa are reformed, that we are automatically allied to them in some structural sense. If this confession had been given to us as a gift, from some pentecostal church or baptist church or calvinist Presbyterian church in South Africa, we would likely not be discussing this. Thus the politics of churches.
We don't have to be seen as fudging on racism just because we don't adopt this statement as something on a par with our confessions or testimonies. It is not difficult to make a statement that all people of all races, colors, and abilities, are equally human beings, equally children of God. But if we are to make such a statement, then we should make our own, not adopt someone else's. This is a Christian-cultural statement, and as such, it should come out of our own cultural context, not from another continent where most of us have never been, nor have our ancestors come from there.
The USA culture liberated slaves one hundred and fifty years ago, and gave everyone equal rights more than fifty years ago. Any testimony that we might make with regard to that is fifty or one hundred years behind the times, out of date, and useless. Nor does it seem to apply in any discernable way to the Canadian context.
If we are going to get into the business of making denominational testimonies, then we should not place these testimonies into some sort of a book that gives them a quasi official status with a different name but similar importance to our basic confessions. And if we are going to start to make denominational testimonies, then to be consistent and honest, we ought to promote individual testimonies on a regular basis. It is these individual testimonies that carry the real weight when we talk about issues such as racism, or ignoring the needs of the disabled, or evangelism, or living lives of purity (purifying ourselves).
My testimony is this: we have adopted an aboriginal girl, my oldest son and wife have adopted a girl from Haiti, and another son and wife have adopted three boys from Russia. Our local church directly supports mission work in Kazakhstan and Kenya. I work with professional people who have come from countries such as Sudan, Kenya, India and Pakistan. And have worked with others whose parents or grandparents or themselves have come from China, Ukraine, France, Germany, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Finland and elsewhere. What have you (you-all) done, or do you intend to do?
I'm sure many others have similar testimonies and situations. I wouldn't be surprised that many voted for the present president, and that many appreciate Martin Luther King day.
The real testimony is from those people who refuse to move out of certain neighborhoods in Chicago, New York, Washington DC, even though the neighborhoods are changing color.
And it is also important to recognize that not all perceived racism is racism. It may also be about strong cultural differences. The desire for cultural connection and similarity leads to the tendency to create a hispanic neighborhood, or a middle-class black neighborhood(ie. parts of Washington, DC.), or an East-Indian community, or a China town, or a dutch community, or an italian neighborhood, or a mormon town. I think to call all of this racism is to miss the point, and it doesn't really get covered by something like Belhar.
If you really want to fight racism and discrimination on basis of disabilities, then you ought to develop a testimony about the fallacy of evolution. It is raw evolutionary theory that leads to racism.
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?
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.
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: Affirm the Belhar? Yes, but Not as a Doctrinal Standard
Steve, I appreciate that you don't want to be racist, nor perceived as racist, and that you want people to know you don't want to be racist, and that you don't want reformed churches to be perceived as racist. I understand that.
However, the Belhar is political. It is political because it deals with the political issues of racism, the power of the state, the power of the church, the ideas of equality and rights. But our discussion of it is also political, because we assume that because reformed churches in South Africa are reformed, that we are automatically allied to them in some structural sense. If this confession had been given to us as a gift, from some pentecostal church or baptist church or calvinist Presbyterian church in South Africa, we would likely not be discussing this. Thus the politics of churches.
We don't have to be seen as fudging on racism just because we don't adopt this statement as something on a par with our confessions or testimonies. It is not difficult to make a statement that all people of all races, colors, and abilities, are equally human beings, equally children of God. But if we are to make such a statement, then we should make our own, not adopt someone else's. This is a Christian-cultural statement, and as such, it should come out of our own cultural context, not from another continent where most of us have never been, nor have our ancestors come from there.
The USA culture liberated slaves one hundred and fifty years ago, and gave everyone equal rights more than fifty years ago. Any testimony that we might make with regard to that is fifty or one hundred years behind the times, out of date, and useless. Nor does it seem to apply in any discernable way to the Canadian context.
If we are going to get into the business of making denominational testimonies, then we should not place these testimonies into some sort of a book that gives them a quasi official status with a different name but similar importance to our basic confessions. And if we are going to start to make denominational testimonies, then to be consistent and honest, we ought to promote individual testimonies on a regular basis. It is these individual testimonies that carry the real weight when we talk about issues such as racism, or ignoring the needs of the disabled, or evangelism, or living lives of purity (purifying ourselves).
My testimony is this: we have adopted an aboriginal girl, my oldest son and wife have adopted a girl from Haiti, and another son and wife have adopted three boys from Russia. Our local church directly supports mission work in Kazakhstan and Kenya. I work with professional people who have come from countries such as Sudan, Kenya, India and Pakistan. And have worked with others whose parents or grandparents or themselves have come from China, Ukraine, France, Germany, Poland, Sweden, Norway, Finland and elsewhere. What have you (you-all) done, or do you intend to do?
I'm sure many others have similar testimonies and situations. I wouldn't be surprised that many voted for the present president, and that many appreciate Martin Luther King day.
The real testimony is from those people who refuse to move out of certain neighborhoods in Chicago, New York, Washington DC, even though the neighborhoods are changing color.
And it is also important to recognize that not all perceived racism is racism. It may also be about strong cultural differences. The desire for cultural connection and similarity leads to the tendency to create a hispanic neighborhood, or a middle-class black neighborhood(ie. parts of Washington, DC.), or an East-Indian community, or a China town, or a dutch community, or an italian neighborhood, or a mormon town. I think to call all of this racism is to miss the point, and it doesn't really get covered by something like Belhar.
If you really want to fight racism and discrimination on basis of disabilities, then you ought to develop a testimony about the fallacy of evolution. It is raw evolutionary theory that leads to racism.
John
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?