I agree with indypastor. The whole name change seems to be done for very pragmatic reasons, while ignoring the spiritual implications. Ironically, pragmatic reasons will eventually not sustain themselves, and the spiritual foundations of CRWRC will decline. The example of "Salvation Army" is a very good one, to show how maintaining a visible connection to the original purpose does not harm the impact of the cause or the organization. The real fact is that "World Renew" is somewhat a pompous unrealistic name. To think that one organization will renew the world... what does this mean? new political systems? new national borders? World government? No more deserts, no more hurricances, no more volcanoes? no more wars? The name is so broad it has almost become meaningless. However, I suppose it will not harm relief efforts too much in the near future, even if it does lose its christian witness, which it seems to be doing.
Very well said, Al. We cannot come to Christ if we are not willing to confess. Jesus came to save sinners, not the righteous who think they do not need salvation. The other side of the coin is that sometimes I hear people being so willing to confess they are sinners (in general, on principle), that they forget that we are made new in Christ, that we can no longer continue to live in sin, since it is the spirit of God that lives in us now. The assurance of pardon is not a license to continue to sin, but an assurance that we are no longer slaves to sin. A reminder of this is as important as anything else in the worship service.
Recently, I was at a debate forum at the University; the debate was on abortion...it was called the Great Abortion Debate. Most of the people there perhaps 70 or 80?, were young people. There were perhaps a half dozen seniors or semi-seniors. Most of the young people there, some married, some not, were supporting the pro-life side of the debate. Young people will get involved in things if they believe they are relevant, important, and vital. There are many issues today that are relevant, important and vital to our lives as Christians, that will attract the attention of young people, if the older people stop taking these issues for granted.
For example, the abortion issue is one. Another example is spending more than five minutes a day in prayer. Another example is avoiding, and promoting the avoidance of pre-marital sexual activity. Another example is giving God the honor in our treatment of creation, including giving 10% of our income back to the Lord.
There are other issues, for which we need to pray, and for which we need to claim God's dominion, and our response. And these issues are all connected to our confessions, to our theology, and to scripture. That is the learning opportunity, and the opportunity for action that we have.
Jim, it seems you do not understand the seriousness of Steve's remarks, and the significance of what he is saying. I tend to agree that the main idea of the covenenant or form of subscription is that the confessions define the denomination, and that one must agree with them in order to be an officebearer. That language is important to Steve and most others, while you are concentrating on process and effort and discussion. People who dig themselves into a hole, are also working very hard, but to no apparent good purpose, so merely the amount of work done, time spent, and effort expended is not by itself the defining moment of the outcome. The impression for many was that the form of subscription was becoming rather useless, since it would have very little binding effect in any case. Your comments seem to continue to leave that impression, at least to me. On the other hand, the revised wording leads to a binding effect, which is most significant.
Any duplicity in playing games and holding onto cards, is surely not appreciated, other than by politicians.
It seems that the issue of being true to What God Wants is pertinent to the discussion of prophecy and cessationism. The reason the creeds and confessions are relevant is that it gives us a way of deciding whether the book of mormon is prophecy or false. It gives us a way of deciding whether Ellen White is prophecy or false.
I think the point of cessationism is not that God does not speak to us by means other than His Written Word. The real point is that in regard to the miraculous nature of His revelations , we don't today find any apostle Peters saying to someone that they would die because they lied, nor an apostle John who revealed the battles and victories of the endtimes as well as deatils about the celebration of God's judgement in the kingdom of heaven. I had thought that cessationism related to the lack of need for miracles and speaking in tongues as a sign of God's Spirit, since the growth and witness of the people of God now provided that sign. And that in some cases in certain new mission fields, those miracles and signs would again sometimes show up as a way of God speaking directly about his power and majesty.
Jesus himself said that they have Moses and the prophets; if they will not listen to those then miracles won't help. Perhaps in the same way, a new prophecy will also not help because they do not listen to the original word of God. But on the other hand, prophecy garnered through prayer, can still speak truth to people. For that reason, prophecy can indicate to us that as long as we follow the direction, the fads, the current popular trends of the world, we will continue to lose our witness, not gain it. For that reason, when the church concentrates on the latest fads about gender equality, color based affirmative action, inevitability of climate change, bathing suit styles, tattoos, belly rings, haircuts, poverty eradication, family planning, physical "safety", primarily because that is what the world is doing, then we can all prophecy that the true church will begin to die a slow death. Whenever we follow the trend of the world, rather than witness to that trend, then we are definately not prophecying, but we are slipping into following, which is the opposite of leading (in case you were wondering), and is also the opposite of witnessing.
When we desire not to be mocked by the world, we have probably lost the effectiveness of our witness, and prophecy will disappear.
The confessions speak to this in various ways. One example:
"Question 32. But why are you called a Christian? (a)
Answer: Because I am a member of Christ by faith, (b) and thus am partaker of his anointing; (c) that so I may confess his name, (d) and present myself a living sacrifice of thankfulness to him: (e) and also that with a free and good conscience I may fight against sin and Satan in this life (f) and afterwards I reign with him eternally, over all creatures."
The greatest and most common sin of the Christian is to want to do what the world does, in the way the world does it. Often we even use "christian" excuses to do it. David's sin of adultery, the Israelites worship of false gods, Israel's desire for a "king", Peter's disagreement that Jesus would die, Judas betrayal of Jesus, Annanias and Sapphira's attempt to get extra credit, all fall into this trap, this sin. Satan loves it. God hates it.
As someone who has been an elder for the last thirty years, and who has been writing sermons for the last five years, I evaluate sermons differently at different times. What do I look for? I look for an emphasis on scripture, as opposed to personal opinions or social fluff. I look for theological soundness, and a holistic approach. I look for the gospel message to be included. A sermon that does not proclaim the gospel may end up being a lecture or a seminar, rather than a sermon proclamation. While looking for theological soundness, I look for relevance, courage, and leadership. A theologically sound sermon can still be fluffy, or lacking in scriptural context and content, so theological soundness by itself is not sufficient. The apostle Paul said there is a time to go from the milk to the meat. (even though both the milk and the meat may be scripturally sound and theologically sound).
A better evaluation process would be good, however. I know I would appreciate it myself from both ends. A more structured process might take away a bit from the ability to simply absorb and react to the message, but on the other hand it could definately play a role in improving the message for the benefit of the rest of the hearers. Some type of balance between evaluating and simply listening and hearing, might have to be found.
Bev, the confessions describe the significance of scripture. Heidelberg 19 and 98, Belgic 2,3,4,5,6,7, address the basic authority and sufficiency of scripture. Therefore whatever scripture says about prophecy, the work of the spirit, miracles, prayer, is affirmed indirectly by the confessions, even when these confessions do not speak specifically about these things. But I agree with your implied conclusion that it is ironic we would try to make a confession on racial equality(Belhar), while not making a specific confessional statement on the place of prophecy and prayer, or other things such as divorce and abortion.
We ought to also think a bit about the purpose of confessions in terms of providing emphasis. For example, the Canons of Dordt teach some basic truths that scripture teaches us. But yet, our focus and emphasis on some of these truths of election and the salvation of covenant children, has sometimes negated the very thing scripture teaches. For example, this can be the result of spending too much time on articles 10 and 11 and not enough time on articles 12 and 13 of the Canons. And while the confessions provide a basis for understanding scripture wholistically, we need to understand that there are different aspects to these doctrines such that there are different ways of expressing them. There are times when it seems that we might condemn people for quoting scriptures simply because those particular scriptures do not exactly say what the confessions say. For example: the phrase Jesus used when he said, "Your faith has saved you." Mark 5, Mark 10, Luke 17. Our Lord has given power to our faith and to our prayer. We should not discount that power on the basis of a confessional understanding of election and predestination. The mystery of this is great, but we should not attempt to destroy a mystery which scripture has not eliminated for us.
Al Hoksbergen, by saying that there is no argument at all that the Belhar is biblical, you have reduced your credibility. If you have been paying attention, you will have noticed that there is indeed an argument that the Belhar is making statements and arguments that are definately not biblical. Two places where it makes non-biblical statements is 1. where it says that God is a special God of the poor and oppressed (implying not so special for the wealthy and blessed, such as Job, or King David, or Nicodemus). 2. where it says that there should be no distinctions made for any human, social or other characteristics (implying that we can make no judgements about behaviour or lifestyles).
It is difficult to see how adopting a confession that only highlights what we are already generally doing, fifty or one hundred fifty years after the fact, will in fact change declining membership, or change the attitude of anyone who has already decided to ignore the confessions.
As a society, this is not where the action is; we are so far past this action, that we do not even know its history very well.
If this warrants a confession, then a more pertinent confession, more relevant, more "today's action" would be a confession that specifically refers to abortion, divorce, child custody, broken families, paedo communion, unity and separation with baptists and pentecostals, creation care, drug use, pornography, islam, bahai, use of the internet, etc. These are the issues of where the action is at. These are the issues of difficulty. These are the issues of relevance.
If unity, and racial and ethnic diversity and equality are really serious issues that require their own "confession", more than what is already clearly indicated in existing confessions, then we should write a confession that really deals with these issues from a biblical perspective rather than a human rights perspective. We should write something much better than the Belhar, and write it from a relevant, modern day, north american perspective, with a truly biblical foundation. More careful use of words, and a better thought out holistic perspective should be used.
But by and large, this would not be a good use of our limited resources, to focus on such an old issue in this way.
Take this South African statement as information. Appreciate its intent. Express our unity with most of its intent. Realize its context. But do not adopt it as a defining legal statement for our denomination.
Posted in: Name Change: Will It Be a Relief to Be “Renew?”
I agree with indypastor. The whole name change seems to be done for very pragmatic reasons, while ignoring the spiritual implications. Ironically, pragmatic reasons will eventually not sustain themselves, and the spiritual foundations of CRWRC will decline. The example of "Salvation Army" is a very good one, to show how maintaining a visible connection to the original purpose does not harm the impact of the cause or the organization. The real fact is that "World Renew" is somewhat a pompous unrealistic name. To think that one organization will renew the world... what does this mean? new political systems? new national borders? World government? No more deserts, no more hurricances, no more volcanoes? no more wars? The name is so broad it has almost become meaningless. However, I suppose it will not harm relief efforts too much in the near future, even if it does lose its christian witness, which it seems to be doing.
Posted in: Is Confession Still Good for the Soul?
Very well said, Al. We cannot come to Christ if we are not willing to confess. Jesus came to save sinners, not the righteous who think they do not need salvation. The other side of the coin is that sometimes I hear people being so willing to confess they are sinners (in general, on principle), that they forget that we are made new in Christ, that we can no longer continue to live in sin, since it is the spirit of God that lives in us now. The assurance of pardon is not a license to continue to sin, but an assurance that we are no longer slaves to sin. A reminder of this is as important as anything else in the worship service.
Posted in: Why Theology and Youth Ministry Seldom Mix
Recently, I was at a debate forum at the University; the debate was on abortion...it was called the Great Abortion Debate. Most of the people there perhaps 70 or 80?, were young people. There were perhaps a half dozen seniors or semi-seniors. Most of the young people there, some married, some not, were supporting the pro-life side of the debate. Young people will get involved in things if they believe they are relevant, important, and vital. There are many issues today that are relevant, important and vital to our lives as Christians, that will attract the attention of young people, if the older people stop taking these issues for granted.
For example, the abortion issue is one. Another example is spending more than five minutes a day in prayer. Another example is avoiding, and promoting the avoidance of pre-marital sexual activity. Another example is giving God the honor in our treatment of creation, including giving 10% of our income back to the Lord.
There are other issues, for which we need to pray, and for which we need to claim God's dominion, and our response. And these issues are all connected to our confessions, to our theology, and to scripture. That is the learning opportunity, and the opportunity for action that we have.
Posted in: Living Confessionally in Covenant
Jim, it seems you do not understand the seriousness of Steve's remarks, and the significance of what he is saying. I tend to agree that the main idea of the covenenant or form of subscription is that the confessions define the denomination, and that one must agree with them in order to be an officebearer. That language is important to Steve and most others, while you are concentrating on process and effort and discussion. People who dig themselves into a hole, are also working very hard, but to no apparent good purpose, so merely the amount of work done, time spent, and effort expended is not by itself the defining moment of the outcome. The impression for many was that the form of subscription was becoming rather useless, since it would have very little binding effect in any case. Your comments seem to continue to leave that impression, at least to me. On the other hand, the revised wording leads to a binding effect, which is most significant.
Any duplicity in playing games and holding onto cards, is surely not appreciated, other than by politicians.
Posted in: Living Confessionally in Covenant
It seems that the issue of being true to What God Wants is pertinent to the discussion of prophecy and cessationism. The reason the creeds and confessions are relevant is that it gives us a way of deciding whether the book of mormon is prophecy or false. It gives us a way of deciding whether Ellen White is prophecy or false.
I think the point of cessationism is not that God does not speak to us by means other than His Written Word. The real point is that in regard to the miraculous nature of His revelations , we don't today find any apostle Peters saying to someone that they would die because they lied, nor an apostle John who revealed the battles and victories of the endtimes as well as deatils about the celebration of God's judgement in the kingdom of heaven. I had thought that cessationism related to the lack of need for miracles and speaking in tongues as a sign of God's Spirit, since the growth and witness of the people of God now provided that sign. And that in some cases in certain new mission fields, those miracles and signs would again sometimes show up as a way of God speaking directly about his power and majesty.
Jesus himself said that they have Moses and the prophets; if they will not listen to those then miracles won't help. Perhaps in the same way, a new prophecy will also not help because they do not listen to the original word of God. But on the other hand, prophecy garnered through prayer, can still speak truth to people. For that reason, prophecy can indicate to us that as long as we follow the direction, the fads, the current popular trends of the world, we will continue to lose our witness, not gain it. For that reason, when the church concentrates on the latest fads about gender equality, color based affirmative action, inevitability of climate change, bathing suit styles, tattoos, belly rings, haircuts, poverty eradication, family planning, physical "safety", primarily because that is what the world is doing, then we can all prophecy that the true church will begin to die a slow death. Whenever we follow the trend of the world, rather than witness to that trend, then we are definately not prophecying, but we are slipping into following, which is the opposite of leading (in case you were wondering), and is also the opposite of witnessing.
When we desire not to be mocked by the world, we have probably lost the effectiveness of our witness, and prophecy will disappear.
The confessions speak to this in various ways. One example:
"Question 32. But why are you called a Christian? (a)
Answer: Because I am a member of Christ by faith, (b) and thus am partaker of his anointing; (c) that so I may confess his name, (d) and present myself a living sacrifice of thankfulness to him: (e) and also that with a free and good conscience I may fight against sin and Satan in this life (f) and afterwards I reign with him eternally, over all creatures."
The greatest and most common sin of the Christian is to want to do what the world does, in the way the world does it. Often we even use "christian" excuses to do it. David's sin of adultery, the Israelites worship of false gods, Israel's desire for a "king", Peter's disagreement that Jesus would die, Judas betrayal of Jesus, Annanias and Sapphira's attempt to get extra credit, all fall into this trap, this sin. Satan loves it. God hates it.
Posted in: So How Good are the Sermons in the CRC?
As someone who has been an elder for the last thirty years, and who has been writing sermons for the last five years, I evaluate sermons differently at different times. What do I look for? I look for an emphasis on scripture, as opposed to personal opinions or social fluff. I look for theological soundness, and a holistic approach. I look for the gospel message to be included. A sermon that does not proclaim the gospel may end up being a lecture or a seminar, rather than a sermon proclamation. While looking for theological soundness, I look for relevance, courage, and leadership. A theologically sound sermon can still be fluffy, or lacking in scriptural context and content, so theological soundness by itself is not sufficient. The apostle Paul said there is a time to go from the milk to the meat. (even though both the milk and the meat may be scripturally sound and theologically sound).
A better evaluation process would be good, however. I know I would appreciate it myself from both ends. A more structured process might take away a bit from the ability to simply absorb and react to the message, but on the other hand it could definately play a role in improving the message for the benefit of the rest of the hearers. Some type of balance between evaluating and simply listening and hearing, might have to be found.
Posted in: Living Confessionally in Covenant
Bev, the confessions describe the significance of scripture. Heidelberg 19 and 98, Belgic 2,3,4,5,6,7, address the basic authority and sufficiency of scripture. Therefore whatever scripture says about prophecy, the work of the spirit, miracles, prayer, is affirmed indirectly by the confessions, even when these confessions do not speak specifically about these things. But I agree with your implied conclusion that it is ironic we would try to make a confession on racial equality(Belhar), while not making a specific confessional statement on the place of prophecy and prayer, or other things such as divorce and abortion.
Posted in: Living Confessionally in Covenant
We ought to also think a bit about the purpose of confessions in terms of providing emphasis. For example, the Canons of Dordt teach some basic truths that scripture teaches us. But yet, our focus and emphasis on some of these truths of election and the salvation of covenant children, has sometimes negated the very thing scripture teaches. For example, this can be the result of spending too much time on articles 10 and 11 and not enough time on articles 12 and 13 of the Canons. And while the confessions provide a basis for understanding scripture wholistically, we need to understand that there are different aspects to these doctrines such that there are different ways of expressing them. There are times when it seems that we might condemn people for quoting scriptures simply because those particular scriptures do not exactly say what the confessions say. For example: the phrase Jesus used when he said, "Your faith has saved you." Mark 5, Mark 10, Luke 17. Our Lord has given power to our faith and to our prayer. We should not discount that power on the basis of a confessional understanding of election and predestination. The mystery of this is great, but we should not attempt to destroy a mystery which scripture has not eliminated for us.
Posted in: Cruelty or Evil, Which is Better?
You did the best you could! God bless you!
Posted in: Living Confessionally in Covenant
Serving Christ under His promise, the way He wants us to.
Posted in: Is Everyone a Missionary?
A man with a mission: a missionary?
Mission-ary - someone sent ,
Missionem - act of sending.
A Christian missionary can be defined as "one who is to witness across cultures."
Maybe it doesn't matter what you are called. Maybe it just matters what you do?
Posted in: Belhar—Up, Down or Sideways?
Al Hoksbergen, by saying that there is no argument at all that the Belhar is biblical, you have reduced your credibility. If you have been paying attention, you will have noticed that there is indeed an argument that the Belhar is making statements and arguments that are definately not biblical. Two places where it makes non-biblical statements is 1. where it says that God is a special God of the poor and oppressed (implying not so special for the wealthy and blessed, such as Job, or King David, or Nicodemus). 2. where it says that there should be no distinctions made for any human, social or other characteristics (implying that we can make no judgements about behaviour or lifestyles).
It is difficult to see how adopting a confession that only highlights what we are already generally doing, fifty or one hundred fifty years after the fact, will in fact change declining membership, or change the attitude of anyone who has already decided to ignore the confessions.
As a society, this is not where the action is; we are so far past this action, that we do not even know its history very well.
If this warrants a confession, then a more pertinent confession, more relevant, more "today's action" would be a confession that specifically refers to abortion, divorce, child custody, broken families, paedo communion, unity and separation with baptists and pentecostals, creation care, drug use, pornography, islam, bahai, use of the internet, etc. These are the issues of where the action is at. These are the issues of difficulty. These are the issues of relevance.
If unity, and racial and ethnic diversity and equality are really serious issues that require their own "confession", more than what is already clearly indicated in existing confessions, then we should write a confession that really deals with these issues from a biblical perspective rather than a human rights perspective. We should write something much better than the Belhar, and write it from a relevant, modern day, north american perspective, with a truly biblical foundation. More careful use of words, and a better thought out holistic perspective should be used.
But by and large, this would not be a good use of our limited resources, to focus on such an old issue in this way.
Take this South African statement as information. Appreciate its intent. Express our unity with most of its intent. Realize its context. But do not adopt it as a defining legal statement for our denomination.