While I believe the Belhar confession has too many problems and too much baggage with it to be adopted as a testimony or confession within the nacrc, I do agree with Richard's comments on unity and denominations. Practicing a practical unity of believers, whether between races, denominations, ethnicities, is more valuable than just writing about it or professing it. The Belhar does not solve the problem, and will likely lead to other problems. This unity is not only between reformed churches of similar historical backgrounds, but between all believers everywhere in all places. The unity must be in spirit and in truth, which transcends structural, procedural, political, and functional barriers and differences.
Our confessions are quite clear that those who confess Jesus as Lord and Saviour are all members of the one body of Christ.
"Certain demons could not come out except by prayer and fasting".
I agree with Mitogo that it is God who heals, not us. God answers our prayers, if our desire is God's will. That means we must understand God's will and pray in accordance with God's will. We must pray for his glory, not for our glory. We must see and understand God;s purpose in the healing, not just our own wishes and desires. The anointing with oil is the same as anointing with oil for ordination or "setting apart". The oil does nothing, but it is like the water of baptism in that it signifies something. Something from outside is healing, just as it is Jesus who died, and the Spirit who sanctifies.
While the word "works" sometimes seems to imply something we do as separate from our faith, the book of James also makes clear that faith without works is dead. I wonder if faith itself might even be considered a "work"? Somewhere it even mentions that faith is a gift, in the context of gifts of he spirit, as if some have more faith than others. Or while all believers have faith, some have a particular gift of faith.
I'm pretty well with Bev on this one, that I'm quite glad if works are rewarded in some manner, as when Jesus gave the parable of the talents, for example. But if I was only motivated for works because of the rewards, then it seems to me that other sins of pride and selfishness and self-centeredness would creep in. Maybe at that point we would then be close to those of whom the Lord said that there will be some who say, "Lord, Lord", at the last day, but shall not enter. I'm at the point therefore that if there are rewards I am quite happy if others are rewarded more than I, or I will be happy to receive whatever rewards God grants, since if we should be content in this world, how could we not be content in the world to come?
While feedback from spiritually sensitive people is very valuable, and while the spirit in which the feedback is given is also much appreciated, preachers should not be averse to receiving feedback from others who are not so "sensitive". Feedback is a two-way street: sometimes it helps the preaching due to constructive input, while other times it reveals the receptivity, awareness and context of the listener, which also provides insight into how the message is getting accross. Understanding the feedback sometimes takes a great deal of prayer, and a little bit of time.
The difference between real unity and artificial institutional unity is obvious. One leads to the exercise of the Christian virtues, to increased witness, to living the love of Christ, following Christ and the guidance of scripture. The other leads to (or is the result of) idolization of forms, buildings, institution, hierarchy, money, structure and efficiency. "
"Attempts at union between the churches (UPCUSA and PCUS) were renewed in the 1970s, culminating in the merger of the two churches to form the Presbyterian Church (USA) on June 10, 1983. At the time of the merger, the churches had a combined membership of 3,121,238.[6] Many of the efforts were spearheaded by the financial and outspoken activism of retired businessman Thomas Clinton who died two years before the merger.[citation needed] A new national headquarters was established in Louisville, Kentucky in 1988 replacing the headquarters of the UPCUSA in New York City and the PCUS located in Atlanta, Georgia." Wikipedia
This quote shows the numbers at the merger. Today the PCUSA has about 2 million members, a 33% reduction from 1983, only 28 years ago. Compared to if numbers had kept pace with general population, the reduction would be much greater; membership should have been at 4 million, so the assumed reduction is close to 50%. Of course, we always think we are different (different than the PCUSA or anyone who shows these trends). But we cannot prove we are different, and the evidence to date indicates we are similar.
You raise some good questions. First maybe we shouldn't assume that anyone marries "into the church", but rather that they marry a Christian who is a member of the church. They may already be a member of another church, and marriage by itself does not indicate their level of committment. Baptism into the body of Christ should maybe be separated from membership in an institution? Maybe that goes for formal "profession of faith" too? Or is that not possible?
The elders are elected, not just once, but over and over again. Hard to get more democratic than that. But they have a ruling and specific leadership function which goes to a much earlier time than the middle ages. They answer to God before they answer to the "membership". But God uses the membership to authenticate or validate their leadership as well.
If the democratic and human rights principles that the world has adopted is in agreement with scripture, and with God's desire and will, then well and good. If those human rights principles are in disagreement, then not so good for those "principles". In any case, within the operation of the church, which is the body of Christ, the idea of "international acceptance" is not a good parameter for how the church should operate. Imagine for example if international principles said that no organization could discriminate on the basis of religion; hmmm, do "international principles" say that? So a hindu or buddhist could be a board member for a christian church? ......? Or a die-hard hutterite could be a board member for a roman catholic mission? ....?
Article 25 says that elders and deacons shall 'serve" for a limited time, "as designated by the council". So first, what does it not say? It does not say that that they shall "be" for a limited time. Presumably elders and deacons could "not serve" at other times, when they are not "serving" or when they are "retired".
Secondly, article 25 says those re-elected shall be reinstalled, not re-ordained, presumably because they have already been ordained previously. This assumes a lack of a break between one term and the next; however the principle is that terms can be extended even individually, and that limits are arbitrary, and that ordination is not magically lost at the end of an arbitrary term limit of two years or three years or five years. There is also the correct principle involved here that it is the local church through the council or consistory that sets the limited time. Theoretically this limited time could be limited until the age of 75, rather than a specified term of a particular number of years.
So, if a council designates an elder (previous elder or retired elder or non-serving elder) to "serve", by acting as a delegate to classis or synod, it can in so doing extend the limited time of service of that elder, since council has the authority to do so. (Much the same as an elder delegate to synod may be serving at the time he is chosen, and "not serving" when he actually "serves" at Synod). And, if the elder in question is not re-elected, but rather appointed for this specific purpose without an election, then a re-installation would not technically be required. If council decides that a re-election is advisable, then a re-installation would also be advisable.
Bottom line principle is that it is the local church that must decide whether the retired elder can fill that role or not.
I want to add one other thing. I have a number of times heard sermons about what it means to be an elder, some of them after some elders finished their terms. One of the number one themes expressed was that you don't stop being an "elder" just because your term is up. This means that while you may stop attending so many meetings, and may not make official family visits, etc. the spiritual leadership does not end. As a retired or non-serving elder you may still lead services, read sermons, teach catechism, teach bible studies, and provide spiritual consolation and instruction. In fact, you should not stop doing these things, because these things are the essence of eldership, just as you don't stop being a deacon just because you are not attending deacon meetings.
While term limits may be a good idea, it is not a good idea to suggest that somehow elders and deacons have lost the ordination of the spirit and lost the blessing of the church when their terms are up, without having been disciplined or deposed. (As far as I know, there is no article 17 for elders or for deacons.)
"If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were precisely those who thought most of the next. It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this." - CS Lewis.
This was a good discussion, and difficult. It needs to continue if we are to get at why the membership of the denomination is declining, since this is part of the issue, although not the entire cause of it. When we make peripheral issues more important than issues which are more clear in scripture, then perhaps this is one of our problems. For example, whether you believe in infant baptism or adult baptism, if you treat repentance and obedience cavalierly with no respect, then the issue of infant or adult baptism is not really the issue at all. Scripture says much less about baptism (whether at youth or maturity, whether once or twice), than it does about true repentance and obedience. Scripture says much more about adultery, idolatry, homosex, and telling falsehoods, than it does about infant baptism or about speaking in tongues. The very fact that we have a number of churches in North America which refer to themselves as Reformed Baptists, adopting many reformed doctrines while still maintaining adult baptism, should tell us that our conclusions about the relation of election and predestination to infant baptism are not so obvious to all, and certainly not inevitable. Scripture's promise to our children is exactly the same promise to those who "are afar off", and so is somewhat of a stretch to apply to infant baptism. So I appreciate Daniel's comments in this regard, and also Bev's comments.
Posted in: We Can Answer Jesus' Prayer — and Article 3 of the Belhar
While I believe the Belhar confession has too many problems and too much baggage with it to be adopted as a testimony or confession within the nacrc, I do agree with Richard's comments on unity and denominations. Practicing a practical unity of believers, whether between races, denominations, ethnicities, is more valuable than just writing about it or professing it. The Belhar does not solve the problem, and will likely lead to other problems. This unity is not only between reformed churches of similar historical backgrounds, but between all believers everywhere in all places. The unity must be in spirit and in truth, which transcends structural, procedural, political, and functional barriers and differences.
Our confessions are quite clear that those who confess Jesus as Lord and Saviour are all members of the one body of Christ.
Posted in: James 5:13-15: Elders Healing With Prayer and Oil
"Certain demons could not come out except by prayer and fasting".
I agree with Mitogo that it is God who heals, not us. God answers our prayers, if our desire is God's will. That means we must understand God's will and pray in accordance with God's will. We must pray for his glory, not for our glory. We must see and understand God;s purpose in the healing, not just our own wishes and desires. The anointing with oil is the same as anointing with oil for ordination or "setting apart". The oil does nothing, but it is like the water of baptism in that it signifies something. Something from outside is healing, just as it is Jesus who died, and the Spirit who sanctifies.
Posted in: The 2 Judgements
While the word "works" sometimes seems to imply something we do as separate from our faith, the book of James also makes clear that faith without works is dead. I wonder if faith itself might even be considered a "work"? Somewhere it even mentions that faith is a gift, in the context of gifts of he spirit, as if some have more faith than others. Or while all believers have faith, some have a particular gift of faith.
I'm pretty well with Bev on this one, that I'm quite glad if works are rewarded in some manner, as when Jesus gave the parable of the talents, for example. But if I was only motivated for works because of the rewards, then it seems to me that other sins of pride and selfishness and self-centeredness would creep in. Maybe at that point we would then be close to those of whom the Lord said that there will be some who say, "Lord, Lord", at the last day, but shall not enter. I'm at the point therefore that if there are rewards I am quite happy if others are rewarded more than I, or I will be happy to receive whatever rewards God grants, since if we should be content in this world, how could we not be content in the world to come?
Posted in: Routine Feedback to Pastors on Preaching
While feedback from spiritually sensitive people is very valuable, and while the spirit in which the feedback is given is also much appreciated, preachers should not be averse to receiving feedback from others who are not so "sensitive". Feedback is a two-way street: sometimes it helps the preaching due to constructive input, while other times it reveals the receptivity, awareness and context of the listener, which also provides insight into how the message is getting accross. Understanding the feedback sometimes takes a great deal of prayer, and a little bit of time.
Posted in: We Can Answer Jesus' Prayer — and Article 3 of the Belhar
The difference between real unity and artificial institutional unity is obvious. One leads to the exercise of the Christian virtues, to increased witness, to living the love of Christ, following Christ and the guidance of scripture. The other leads to (or is the result of) idolization of forms, buildings, institution, hierarchy, money, structure and efficiency. "
"Attempts at union between the churches (UPCUSA and PCUS) were renewed in the 1970s, culminating in the merger of the two churches to form the Presbyterian Church (USA) on June 10, 1983. At the time of the merger, the churches had a combined membership of 3,121,238.[6] Many of the efforts were spearheaded by the financial and outspoken activism of retired businessman Thomas Clinton who died two years before the merger.[citation needed] A new national headquarters was established in Louisville, Kentucky in 1988 replacing the headquarters of the UPCUSA in New York City and the PCUS located in Atlanta, Georgia." Wikipedia
This quote shows the numbers at the merger. Today the PCUSA has about 2 million members, a 33% reduction from 1983, only 28 years ago. Compared to if numbers had kept pace with general population, the reduction would be much greater; membership should have been at 4 million, so the assumed reduction is close to 50%. Of course, we always think we are different (different than the PCUSA or anyone who shows these trends). But we cannot prove we are different, and the evidence to date indicates we are similar.
Posted in: Membership - Again
You raise some good questions. First maybe we shouldn't assume that anyone marries "into the church", but rather that they marry a Christian who is a member of the church. They may already be a member of another church, and marriage by itself does not indicate their level of committment. Baptism into the body of Christ should maybe be separated from membership in an institution? Maybe that goes for formal "profession of faith" too? Or is that not possible?
Posted in: Representative Government?
I think he means that his opinions represents or reflects those people's views.
Posted in: Representative Government?
The elders are elected, not just once, but over and over again. Hard to get more democratic than that. But they have a ruling and specific leadership function which goes to a much earlier time than the middle ages. They answer to God before they answer to the "membership". But God uses the membership to authenticate or validate their leadership as well.
If the democratic and human rights principles that the world has adopted is in agreement with scripture, and with God's desire and will, then well and good. If those human rights principles are in disagreement, then not so good for those "principles". In any case, within the operation of the church, which is the body of Christ, the idea of "international acceptance" is not a good parameter for how the church should operate. Imagine for example if international principles said that no organization could discriminate on the basis of religion; hmmm, do "international principles" say that? So a hindu or buddhist could be a board member for a christian church? ......? Or a die-hard hutterite could be a board member for a roman catholic mission? ....?
Posted in: Time for an Alternative Option for Elder Delegates to Synod?
Article 25 says that elders and deacons shall 'serve" for a limited time, "as designated by the council". So first, what does it not say? It does not say that that they shall "be" for a limited time. Presumably elders and deacons could "not serve" at other times, when they are not "serving" or when they are "retired".
Secondly, article 25 says those re-elected shall be reinstalled, not re-ordained, presumably because they have already been ordained previously. This assumes a lack of a break between one term and the next; however the principle is that terms can be extended even individually, and that limits are arbitrary, and that ordination is not magically lost at the end of an arbitrary term limit of two years or three years or five years. There is also the correct principle involved here that it is the local church through the council or consistory that sets the limited time. Theoretically this limited time could be limited until the age of 75, rather than a specified term of a particular number of years.
So, if a council designates an elder (previous elder or retired elder or non-serving elder) to "serve", by acting as a delegate to classis or synod, it can in so doing extend the limited time of service of that elder, since council has the authority to do so. (Much the same as an elder delegate to synod may be serving at the time he is chosen, and "not serving" when he actually "serves" at Synod). And, if the elder in question is not re-elected, but rather appointed for this specific purpose without an election, then a re-installation would not technically be required. If council decides that a re-election is advisable, then a re-installation would also be advisable.
Bottom line principle is that it is the local church that must decide whether the retired elder can fill that role or not.
As I see it.
Posted in: Time for an Alternative Option for Elder Delegates to Synod?
I want to add one other thing. I have a number of times heard sermons about what it means to be an elder, some of them after some elders finished their terms. One of the number one themes expressed was that you don't stop being an "elder" just because your term is up. This means that while you may stop attending so many meetings, and may not make official family visits, etc. the spiritual leadership does not end. As a retired or non-serving elder you may still lead services, read sermons, teach catechism, teach bible studies, and provide spiritual consolation and instruction. In fact, you should not stop doing these things, because these things are the essence of eldership, just as you don't stop being a deacon just because you are not attending deacon meetings.
While term limits may be a good idea, it is not a good idea to suggest that somehow elders and deacons have lost the ordination of the spirit and lost the blessing of the church when their terms are up, without having been disciplined or deposed. (As far as I know, there is no article 17 for elders or for deacons.)
Posted in: Neglecting Evangelism in Your Passion for Social Justice?
"If you read history you will find that the Christians who did most for the present world were precisely those who thought most of the next. It is since Christians have largely ceased to think of the other world that they have become so ineffective in this." - CS Lewis.
Posted in: The Reformed Distinctive, or the Reformed "Stink"?
This was a good discussion, and difficult. It needs to continue if we are to get at why the membership of the denomination is declining, since this is part of the issue, although not the entire cause of it. When we make peripheral issues more important than issues which are more clear in scripture, then perhaps this is one of our problems. For example, whether you believe in infant baptism or adult baptism, if you treat repentance and obedience cavalierly with no respect, then the issue of infant or adult baptism is not really the issue at all. Scripture says much less about baptism (whether at youth or maturity, whether once or twice), than it does about true repentance and obedience. Scripture says much more about adultery, idolatry, homosex, and telling falsehoods, than it does about infant baptism or about speaking in tongues. The very fact that we have a number of churches in North America which refer to themselves as Reformed Baptists, adopting many reformed doctrines while still maintaining adult baptism, should tell us that our conclusions about the relation of election and predestination to infant baptism are not so obvious to all, and certainly not inevitable. Scripture's promise to our children is exactly the same promise to those who "are afar off", and so is somewhat of a stretch to apply to infant baptism. So I appreciate Daniel's comments in this regard, and also Bev's comments.