In the directive from synod to capture additional decisions and regulations in the CO, exactly the wrong direction is being held to. The first objective of any CO changes should be to reduce the size and length of the CO by 50%. It should be made smaller, not bigger. The process should be to put a garbage can beside the CO and ask, what can we do without? What can we eliminate. Do we really need more rules, more conditions, more categories, more, more, more??? Everytime an additional rule or category or condition is attached, there is another potential and cause for division, for separation, for exclusion, for reducing the freedom in Christ to serve him.
On the one hand we want ecumenicity; on the other hand we create more rules that make ecumenicity either impossible, or make it more and more necessary to ignore the CO.
Reduce, reduce, reduce. Then perhaps we will come to a better understanding of what the CO ought to be all about.
And, as a further note, the CO should not be organized around the demands of the Pension Fund. That is ordering things in completely the wrong order. Rather, the Pension Fund should be made to fit the requirements of the CO. If we have all these various staff positions in the CRCNA then the Pension Fund should be reorganized to include them all, including janitors, secretaries, etc.
Tim Brown... wow! lots of interesting controversies about grace, gospel, faith leading to sanctification, assurance, etc., etc.. in the links you provided but the bottom line for me is simple. Saved by grace through faith. and then, "shall we sin more, so that grace may abound?" Christ talked more about obedience, than He did about grace. Although He exhibited grace in his life and actions. And in his death and resurrection.
Lately, I've heard the quote, "judge not, that you be not judged", used as a way of muting the commands of obedience. It is a way of neutering the authority of elders and pastors. It is often used as a way of reducing the commands of Christ in our daily lives.
We can debate the theological precepts forever, but the bottom line is that our desire to follow Christ is always fighting with our sinful nature. We are sinful saints. When we stop fighting against that sinful nature, then sin wins. Pray for the Spirit to fill us, to win the victory over the daily sin in our lives. Scripture says that no one who follows Christ continues to sin. Don't make excuses for it, and don't try to justify yourself in your sin. Believe it and do it right.
In our church, which is quite small, we have four serving office bearers who serve the dual role of elder and deacon, so that would be one example where the offices cooperate with each other. If you are both an elder and a deacon, then the one office will accompany the other. And if you are a pastoral elder, then you might even have three offices in one. Hmmnn.
Thanks for your remarks. In your original column you inserted a statement "at no time should elders feel superior to deacons". Interesting statement. I would add that at no time should an elder feel superior to anyone. At no time should a preacher feel superior, and at no time should an evangelist or deacon feel superior. I wonder if you agree that the church order gives the appearance of superiority to preachers, compared to elders and deacons. The number of articles devoted to preachers/pastors/ministers for how they are qualified, how they are disqualified, when they are retired, and when not retired, how they are examined, and what they may and may not do, compared to the one article that combines the offices of elder and deacon as a sort of after thought. We make excuses for this, and rationalize it away, but in fact it is a symptom of how we live as church. It certainly counters the explicit statement in the church order which states that no office bearer should lord it over another, and all offices are equal in honor.
Your excellent scriptural examples of deacons baptizing and preaching certainly also calls into question the generalized restrictions on elders and deacons with regard to preaching and sacraments. The apostle Peter appealed to elders as a fellow elder, and not as a "superior" apostolic office holder, even though he had the credentials of living and walking with Jesus. We can pretty well assume that all elders shared the gospel and preached the good news, and probably most deacons did as well. And likely baptized new believers also. And the church grew mightily.
Perhaps you could enlighten for me whether scripture says more about immoral living in the body of believers, or about who can baptize or preach. And which of the two do we as a church adhere more strictly to?
An interesting concept, Greg. More bible based than "self-based". That both men and women can be "sons of God" seems to be much more egalitarian than our present day concepts of gender equality. It leaves no room for distinguishing any kind of difference between sons of God and daughters of God, in terms of God's love and salvation for us. Thanks for your words.
We can argue about words till the cows come home. Fact of the matter is that "man" is often used to mean mankind, which includes boys, and girls, and women, and men. When the term is used, it implies an equality in significance of all of the human race, genders, ages, colors, languages, ethnicities. Trying to remove that meaning, is simply highlighting the differences rather than the similarities (which is the exact opposite of your intent).
It is quite obvious that "sons" refers to both males and females. See below.
In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering.
[ God Disciplines His Sons ] Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.
Bev, you are bringing up touchy subjects, and an area which has a lot of shades in it. I think it is good you courageously bring it up. If what you say about 60 to 80% of spiritual leaders struggling with this issue is true, then how do we deal with this issue? I think it goes further than just accessing stuff on the internet, although that is the most pernicious. What was salacious and covered in brown paper fifty years ago, is now plastered on billboards along the highway, it seems. Stuff on the internet comes up uninvited, and for some, it is like giving candy to a baby, or alcohol to an alcoholic.
Perhaps it is all part of a larger picture, which tolerates shacking up, premarital sex, easy divorce, immodest dress, R rated and PG rated movies. The more that this permeates the church, the harder it is to fight against porn as well. It seems if 60% of leaders are struggling with this probably at a variety of levels, then we need to find ways of combating this problem in a generic way. We have a safe church committee for protection of young children, and protection of churches from liability. But perhaps we should have a specific group or committee or program developing and promoting safeguards for internet viewing, prayer for combatting this vile sin, and materials explaining the whys of it, and also the ways of conquering it, perhaps like the AA twelve step program.
If enough churches get together to make a request for such a classis, that is, the number of such churches would be proportionate to the number of churches in any other classis, then it would be difficult to deny such a request, anymore than it would be difficult to deny one particular church's right to not attend classis, or to maintain its stand on this particular issue, which synod has said both positions have valid scriptural grounds. (perhaps I am mistaken, but don't the korean churches and native churches have a separate classis each?)
As a side note, Meg, you said "a) churches in that classis who do not hold a Biblical conviction that women ought to serve..." This is semantics partly, but these churches are misportrayed. These churches do believe that women ought to serve, but not as office-bearers. Secondly, it should be reworded to say that these churches hold a biblical conviction that women ought not to serve as office-bearers. (It is not that these churches do not hold a position, as your statement implies.)
Randy, your use of church history is apt. It helps us to understand why positions were taken at the time, and helps us to question whether those conditions still exist. It was important at the time to stress God's sovereignty, faithfulness, pre-eminence, which are all embodied in the idea of supra-lapsarianism. The church at the time needed visible signs of God's amazing grace, as well as His election choices.
Back to Eph 4:5, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism". John the Baptizer baptized a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Jesus himself was baptized by John, yet not for the remission of sins, since He was sinless. Paul in Acts 19 says that John baptized for repentance, but people needed to be baptized by the Holy spirit. Romans 6 says that baptism means walking in newness of life. I Peter 3 says that baptism is the answer of a good conscience before God (thru Christ's resurrection). Hebrews 6 talks of the doctrine of baptisms (plural). So from their point of view, it is not as simple and straightforward as some like to think. We sometimes oversimplify much more than scripture does.
True there is one baptism by one God, who is also Spirit and Son. There is one salvation, not several. There is one redemption for sins, and Christ is not crucified over and over again. We are buried with Christ once, but also continually, and also raised with Christ. We are raised, but also being raised (sanctified). But baptism by water symbolizes that; it doesn’t equal that.
Even though we have been sanctified by Christ before God, yet sanctification for us here is still also a process. That is why we are “called” to obedience even though our spirit renewed desire is already to do God’s will, since as Paul says, we still do the things we do not want to do.
I’m not arguing for a re-baptism. I am merely putting forth an argument that presents an alternative perspective which may be still scriptural. I am certainly not arguing for re-baptism on every whim and caprice for a renewal which in occurs daily. But I am merely suggesting that when people have been baptized as children, by parents who either were not Christians, or who completely disregarded the covenant of believers in the way they raised their children as pagans, then it might be appropriate to permit to baptize these children when they become new believers as adults. (There may be grounds also for not permitting this, but such illegitimate baptisms based on formula and forms seem to be illegitimate in spite of using all the right words. God said he didn’t want sacrifices from the Israelites if their hearts were not right. Paul was clear that outward circumcision meant nothing; only circumcision of the heart mattered. Perhaps our practice of baptism could also include a recognition of those teachings as well.)
As far as consensus is concerned, we all know that consensus is a result of a discussion, that it does not apply if some seriously disagree, and that consensus is not in itself the basis for the validity of anything, especially when it comes to our faithlife.
Your statement that the bible no where says "...." sounds definitive, but is not. The bible also no where says that infants of believers should be baptized, nor that rebaptism is wrong. The bible also no where says that only "ministers (servants) should preach, or that there should be different denominations, or that worship services should be held on Sundays, or that elders should have limited terms. The weight of evidence leans in a certain direction, and in this case it seems synod went against the weight of the evidence, instead of following the weight of the scriptural evidence.
When you try to decide if something undermines a ministry, ask yourself if another situation was at question, how you would answer that question? For example, suppose the issue was re-baptism. If some adopted it, and others did not, and wanted a separate classis, would having the separate classis or not having it undermine someone's ministry (either position)? What evidence or proof would you use to demonstrate that someone's ministry was undermined? Would it be good or bad that someone's ministry was undermined?
So, the analogy or comparison of re-baptism does not work then for you? You suggest that re-baptism is a confessional issue, and that women in office is not. Hmmm. Is not one of the foundational confessional precepts, that scripture is our authority for life and doctrine and practice? Compare these two issues then on the basis of scripture. On the one hand, re-baptism. Name the passages or the scriptural reasoning (reasoning found directly in scripture) that forbids or even recommends against re-baptism. I am not talking about extrapolation or deductions from a scriptural view of covenant, but from scripture itself.
Now name the passages and practices found in scripture that indicate against women in office (having authority over men). Regardless of your conclusions on each of these practices, it is undeniable that scripture gives more direct indications against women in authority over men, than it does against re-baptism.
To say that women in office is not "confessional" is muddying the waters. I believe that infant baptism is a good practice, that it indicates God chooses us before we choose him, and that God works through believers and their families. However, there is also a very good case to be made that baptism should follow belief and repentance and confession, regardless of the covenant of grace with believers. I do not hold to that, but it is still a good case. The confessional issue is the covenant of grace; the practice of denying re-baptism may not be necessary to hold to that covenant of grace. I know it is not strictly or absolutely necessary, since I know people who hold to the covenant of grace working through believers and their children, and yet participate in re-baptism.
The apostle Paul made women in authority a confessional issue by the parallels he made with Christ and the church, as well as the origin of sin and the fall.
So the argument could be made that ministry is hindered when these precepts are ignored or denied.
Posted in: Church Order Revision: Discussion
In the directive from synod to capture additional decisions and regulations in the CO, exactly the wrong direction is being held to. The first objective of any CO changes should be to reduce the size and length of the CO by 50%. It should be made smaller, not bigger. The process should be to put a garbage can beside the CO and ask, what can we do without? What can we eliminate. Do we really need more rules, more conditions, more categories, more, more, more??? Everytime an additional rule or category or condition is attached, there is another potential and cause for division, for separation, for exclusion, for reducing the freedom in Christ to serve him.
On the one hand we want ecumenicity; on the other hand we create more rules that make ecumenicity either impossible, or make it more and more necessary to ignore the CO.
Reduce, reduce, reduce. Then perhaps we will come to a better understanding of what the CO ought to be all about.
And, as a further note, the CO should not be organized around the demands of the Pension Fund. That is ordering things in completely the wrong order. Rather, the Pension Fund should be made to fit the requirements of the CO. If we have all these various staff positions in the CRCNA then the Pension Fund should be reorganized to include them all, including janitors, secretaries, etc.
Posted in: What is "Sonship"?
Tim Brown... wow! lots of interesting controversies about grace, gospel, faith leading to sanctification, assurance, etc., etc.. in the links you provided but the bottom line for me is simple. Saved by grace through faith. and then, "shall we sin more, so that grace may abound?" Christ talked more about obedience, than He did about grace. Although He exhibited grace in his life and actions. And in his death and resurrection.
Lately, I've heard the quote, "judge not, that you be not judged", used as a way of muting the commands of obedience. It is a way of neutering the authority of elders and pastors. It is often used as a way of reducing the commands of Christ in our daily lives.
We can debate the theological precepts forever, but the bottom line is that our desire to follow Christ is always fighting with our sinful nature. We are sinful saints. When we stop fighting against that sinful nature, then sin wins. Pray for the Spirit to fill us, to win the victory over the daily sin in our lives. Scripture says that no one who follows Christ continues to sin. Don't make excuses for it, and don't try to justify yourself in your sin. Believe it and do it right.
Posted in: Why Every Elder Needs a Deacon
In our church, which is quite small, we have four serving office bearers who serve the dual role of elder and deacon, so that would be one example where the offices cooperate with each other. If you are both an elder and a deacon, then the one office will accompany the other. And if you are a pastoral elder, then you might even have three offices in one. Hmmnn.
Posted in: Why Every Elder Needs a Deacon
Thanks for your remarks. In your original column you inserted a statement "at no time should elders feel superior to deacons". Interesting statement. I would add that at no time should an elder feel superior to anyone. At no time should a preacher feel superior, and at no time should an evangelist or deacon feel superior. I wonder if you agree that the church order gives the appearance of superiority to preachers, compared to elders and deacons. The number of articles devoted to preachers/pastors/ministers for how they are qualified, how they are disqualified, when they are retired, and when not retired, how they are examined, and what they may and may not do, compared to the one article that combines the offices of elder and deacon as a sort of after thought. We make excuses for this, and rationalize it away, but in fact it is a symptom of how we live as church. It certainly counters the explicit statement in the church order which states that no office bearer should lord it over another, and all offices are equal in honor.
Your excellent scriptural examples of deacons baptizing and preaching certainly also calls into question the generalized restrictions on elders and deacons with regard to preaching and sacraments. The apostle Peter appealed to elders as a fellow elder, and not as a "superior" apostolic office holder, even though he had the credentials of living and walking with Jesus. We can pretty well assume that all elders shared the gospel and preached the good news, and probably most deacons did as well. And likely baptized new believers also. And the church grew mightily.
Perhaps you could enlighten for me whether scripture says more about immoral living in the body of believers, or about who can baptize or preach. And which of the two do we as a church adhere more strictly to?
Posted in: What is "Sonship"?
An interesting concept, Greg. More bible based than "self-based". That both men and women can be "sons of God" seems to be much more egalitarian than our present day concepts of gender equality. It leaves no room for distinguishing any kind of difference between sons of God and daughters of God, in terms of God's love and salvation for us. Thanks for your words.
Posted in: What is "Sonship"?
We can argue about words till the cows come home. Fact of the matter is that "man" is often used to mean mankind, which includes boys, and girls, and women, and men. When the term is used, it implies an equality in significance of all of the human race, genders, ages, colors, languages, ethnicities. Trying to remove that meaning, is simply highlighting the differences rather than the similarities (which is the exact opposite of your intent).
It is quite obvious that "sons" refers to both males and females. See below.
Matthew 5:9
Blessed are the peacemakers, for they will be called sons of God.
Romans 8:14
because those who are led by the Spirit of God are sons of God.
Romans 8:19
The creation waits in eager expectation for the sons of God to be revealed.
Romans 9:26
and, “It will happen that in the very place where it was said to them, ‘You are not my people,’ they will be called ‘sons of the living God.’”
Galatians 3:26
[ Sons of God ] You are all sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus,
Galatians 4:6
Because you are sons, God sent the Spirit of his Son into our hearts, the Spirit who calls out, “Abba, Father.”
Hebrews 2:10
In bringing many sons to glory, it was fitting that God, for whom and through whom everything exists, should make the author of their salvation perfect through suffering.
Hebrews 12:1
[ God Disciplines His Sons ] Therefore, since we are surrounded by such a great cloud of witnesses, let us throw off everything that hinders and the sin that so easily entangles, and let us run with perseverance the race marked out for us.
Posted in: Of Rob Ford and Pastors
Bev, you are bringing up touchy subjects, and an area which has a lot of shades in it. I think it is good you courageously bring it up. If what you say about 60 to 80% of spiritual leaders struggling with this issue is true, then how do we deal with this issue? I think it goes further than just accessing stuff on the internet, although that is the most pernicious. What was salacious and covered in brown paper fifty years ago, is now plastered on billboards along the highway, it seems. Stuff on the internet comes up uninvited, and for some, it is like giving candy to a baby, or alcohol to an alcoholic.
Perhaps it is all part of a larger picture, which tolerates shacking up, premarital sex, easy divorce, immodest dress, R rated and PG rated movies. The more that this permeates the church, the harder it is to fight against porn as well. It seems if 60% of leaders are struggling with this probably at a variety of levels, then we need to find ways of combating this problem in a generic way. We have a safe church committee for protection of young children, and protection of churches from liability. But perhaps we should have a specific group or committee or program developing and promoting safeguards for internet viewing, prayer for combatting this vile sin, and materials explaining the whys of it, and also the ways of conquering it, perhaps like the AA twelve step program.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
If enough churches get together to make a request for such a classis, that is, the number of such churches would be proportionate to the number of churches in any other classis, then it would be difficult to deny such a request, anymore than it would be difficult to deny one particular church's right to not attend classis, or to maintain its stand on this particular issue, which synod has said both positions have valid scriptural grounds. (perhaps I am mistaken, but don't the korean churches and native churches have a separate classis each?)
As a side note, Meg, you said "a) churches in that classis who do not hold a Biblical conviction that women ought to serve..." This is semantics partly, but these churches are misportrayed. These churches do believe that women ought to serve, but not as office-bearers. Secondly, it should be reworded to say that these churches hold a biblical conviction that women ought not to serve as office-bearers. (It is not that these churches do not hold a position, as your statement implies.)
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
Randy, your use of church history is apt. It helps us to understand why positions were taken at the time, and helps us to question whether those conditions still exist. It was important at the time to stress God's sovereignty, faithfulness, pre-eminence, which are all embodied in the idea of supra-lapsarianism. The church at the time needed visible signs of God's amazing grace, as well as His election choices.
Back to Eph 4:5, "one Lord, one faith, one baptism". John the Baptizer baptized a baptism of repentance for the remission of sins. Jesus himself was baptized by John, yet not for the remission of sins, since He was sinless. Paul in Acts 19 says that John baptized for repentance, but people needed to be baptized by the Holy spirit. Romans 6 says that baptism means walking in newness of life. I Peter 3 says that baptism is the answer of a good conscience before God (thru Christ's resurrection). Hebrews 6 talks of the doctrine of baptisms (plural). So from their point of view, it is not as simple and straightforward as some like to think. We sometimes oversimplify much more than scripture does.
True there is one baptism by one God, who is also Spirit and Son. There is one salvation, not several. There is one redemption for sins, and Christ is not crucified over and over again. We are buried with Christ once, but also continually, and also raised with Christ. We are raised, but also being raised (sanctified). But baptism by water symbolizes that; it doesn’t equal that.
Even though we have been sanctified by Christ before God, yet sanctification for us here is still also a process. That is why we are “called” to obedience even though our spirit renewed desire is already to do God’s will, since as Paul says, we still do the things we do not want to do.
I’m not arguing for a re-baptism. I am merely putting forth an argument that presents an alternative perspective which may be still scriptural. I am certainly not arguing for re-baptism on every whim and caprice for a renewal which in occurs daily. But I am merely suggesting that when people have been baptized as children, by parents who either were not Christians, or who completely disregarded the covenant of believers in the way they raised their children as pagans, then it might be appropriate to permit to baptize these children when they become new believers as adults. (There may be grounds also for not permitting this, but such illegitimate baptisms based on formula and forms seem to be illegitimate in spite of using all the right words. God said he didn’t want sacrifices from the Israelites if their hearts were not right. Paul was clear that outward circumcision meant nothing; only circumcision of the heart mattered. Perhaps our practice of baptism could also include a recognition of those teachings as well.)
As far as consensus is concerned, we all know that consensus is a result of a discussion, that it does not apply if some seriously disagree, and that consensus is not in itself the basis for the validity of anything, especially when it comes to our faithlife.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
Your statement that the bible no where says "...." sounds definitive, but is not. The bible also no where says that infants of believers should be baptized, nor that rebaptism is wrong. The bible also no where says that only "ministers (servants) should preach, or that there should be different denominations, or that worship services should be held on Sundays, or that elders should have limited terms. The weight of evidence leans in a certain direction, and in this case it seems synod went against the weight of the evidence, instead of following the weight of the scriptural evidence.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
When you try to decide if something undermines a ministry, ask yourself if another situation was at question, how you would answer that question? For example, suppose the issue was re-baptism. If some adopted it, and others did not, and wanted a separate classis, would having the separate classis or not having it undermine someone's ministry (either position)? What evidence or proof would you use to demonstrate that someone's ministry was undermined? Would it be good or bad that someone's ministry was undermined?
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
So, the analogy or comparison of re-baptism does not work then for you? You suggest that re-baptism is a confessional issue, and that women in office is not. Hmmm. Is not one of the foundational confessional precepts, that scripture is our authority for life and doctrine and practice? Compare these two issues then on the basis of scripture. On the one hand, re-baptism. Name the passages or the scriptural reasoning (reasoning found directly in scripture) that forbids or even recommends against re-baptism. I am not talking about extrapolation or deductions from a scriptural view of covenant, but from scripture itself.
Now name the passages and practices found in scripture that indicate against women in office (having authority over men). Regardless of your conclusions on each of these practices, it is undeniable that scripture gives more direct indications against women in authority over men, than it does against re-baptism.
To say that women in office is not "confessional" is muddying the waters. I believe that infant baptism is a good practice, that it indicates God chooses us before we choose him, and that God works through believers and their families. However, there is also a very good case to be made that baptism should follow belief and repentance and confession, regardless of the covenant of grace with believers. I do not hold to that, but it is still a good case. The confessional issue is the covenant of grace; the practice of denying re-baptism may not be necessary to hold to that covenant of grace. I know it is not strictly or absolutely necessary, since I know people who hold to the covenant of grace working through believers and their children, and yet participate in re-baptism.
The apostle Paul made women in authority a confessional issue by the parallels he made with Christ and the church, as well as the origin of sin and the fall.
So the argument could be made that ministry is hindered when these precepts are ignored or denied.