Rob Braun
I've been active member in the CRC since 1992. I've been part of and clerked for the Classical Home Missions Commitee here in Classis Lake Superior. I was a Licensed Exhorter. Before that I was a minister in an independent Charismatic Church for ten years. Presently I am a Ministry Associate at Bethel CRC in Princeton, Mn. I occasionally write articles for the Banner's "Reformed Matters". I love to read and write. I'll do op-ed pieces in a variety of local newspapers. I'm in the process of publishing a novel. I coached hockey here in Princeton for over tens years. And I was baptized and confirmed in the ELCA. I studied under Dr. Francis Schaeffer at L'Abri in Switzerland and lived in a Kibbutz in Israel were I studied Hebrew during the Yom Kippor War.
Posted in: How has the Article 7 change affected those seeking to become Ministers of the Word?
I find your discussion ironic concerning Article 7 candidates yet all the while we as a denomination are attempting to lower our standards for officers of the church in general by not requiring them to sign and endorse our church confessions. I agree that we went too far when it came to Article 7 but sadly in the dozen or so seminary graduate examinations I’ve witnessed here in my Classis over the last twenty years very few of them have shown their theological competency equal to the many brothers and sisters I’ve seen examined as Licensed Exhorters. In fact I’ve often raised my deep concern over the seeming lack of basic theological knowledge of many of these Calvin Seminary graduates. They rarely did very good when asked basic doctrinal and biblical questions and yet Classis would simply rubber stamp them through because, well, they are our Seminary graduates.
Again, perhaps I’m going off track here on the discussion concerning Article 7 but I believe our requirements of theological education for all officers of the church generally has fallen on hard times. It does concern me very deeply and makes me wonder about the nature of sermon writing going on in our denomination with our doctrinal and biblical standards seemingly being lowered in general.
Posted in: A New Way to Marry
It is food for thought, Sunday worship weddings. Your idea is to make the wedding ceremony much like the practice of baptism, that is Covenant, and what could be most biblically identified with the idea of covenant than a wedding. I both like it and endorse it, particularly where, as with baptism, we exhort the congregation to do their part to see this marriage spiritually prosper and succeed. It is a question the church needs to ask itself especially when the divorce rate among professing Christians hardly differs from the divorce rate among non-Christians. It is probably fair to day the church has lost the cultural war on marriage because the covenantal view of marriage has been lost to the church.
Posted in: Affirm the Belhar? Yes, but Not as a Doctrinal Standard
"let‟s recall the genre distinction made above between the historic Confessions that are doctrinal standards and recent declarations about social-political issues. BC clearly fits the latter, not the former, whatever it was named."
For me this is the heart of the issue, is the Belhar truely a Confessional statement on par with the Three Forms of unity or is it a social-politial statement that sounds really good? I don't think it rates on the level of the Three Forms of Unity and am a bit distressed that we as a denomination would so quickly and willingly make it equal to them. I agree with Coop that it should be received as a statement that we indorse but not on the level of our Confessions and Creeds. Coop also makes a good point that one reason we may be so willing to allow them equal status with our other Confessions and Creeds is because an appretiation of those Confessions and Creeds have fallen on hard times in our denomination.
Posted in: Affirm the Belhar? Yes, but Not as a Doctrinal Standard
Hey Steve;
My concern with adopting the BC is: Will it force us somewhere down the road into a situation where we wil either have to accept same sex marriages or be deemed as practicing injustice and prejudice against homosexuals according to the BC? I say this because as John Cooper pointed out the BC language has been used to do just that in other denominations. We live in a world where "Tolerance" is the cultural religion of the day and can easily be used against us as it has in the church affiliated schools in Canada. It is something to seriously think about. The wording of the BC is so open to interpretation that I have some serious concerns how it could be used, or more to the point, how it already has been used. It isn't a theological treaties by any stretch of the imagination. It is clearly a religious-social-political statement. I'm not sure I'd even want to see it used even as a testimonial.
Posted in: Who Was Adam?
I want to thank you for your thoughts here. First off, there’s nothing that you wrote that I wouldn’t agree with. I agree with it all. Also, like you, I feel the Genesis story is also based on real events and not a fable or some kind of parabolic poetry. The problem with English speakers is they don’t appreciate the depth of meaning found in the original Hebrew words of Genesis. There is so much more written in these texts than I have found in any English translation that I have ever read. All translations fall short of the original language. My advice to reading Genesis is to get a good Hebrew-English concordance of the Old Testament and with a little effort you can see what it is I’m talking about. And, as for all those articles pointing to a single woman’s Mitochondrial DNA as the origin of all of humanity I’ve also have read and agree, would seem to be evidence for the existence of a Hava or Eve, or Noah’s wife at the least. Also I’m not at all opposed to the idea that Eve may have been born miraculously from Adam. The problem is the text itself says there were other people at the time of Adam and Eve. Genesis chapters 4 and 6 speak to this. For example, in chapter 6 you have several curious texts that say the daughters of Adam were either married or taken by the Sons of Eloyim (which can mean a whole variety of things) and were also taken by the Nephalim or the fallen/ tyrannical ones. These two sets of people are not identified as sons of Adam, in fact both texts seem to imply it wasn’t a good thing that the daughters of Adam were married or taken by these people. There is such a wonderful bountiful depth here in Hebrew Bible that I wish more people could come to appreciate.
Posted in: Who Was Adam?
I don't know what Churck Missler means. To begin with, Alpha and Omega are Greek letters, not Hebrew. Maybe he's referring to the Greek Septuigent of the Old Testament. Could you help me out, do you have a specific point to make about the blog I wrote? I want to apologize, I didn't listen to the three hours of Chuck Missler's sermon or teaching. I'll listen when I get some extra time.
Posted in: Spiritual Discernment at Ecclesiastical Assemblies
So, any thoughts on how to go about this? Spiritual discernment as part of the work of Classis? I say this as a former Charismatic Minister, now a Ministry Associate in the CRC. Elaborate-please!
Posted in: Are We ignoring Elders at Synod?
I am an elder, well; I’m a “Commissioned Pastor”, but still an elder. I’ve tried to get to as many Classis meetings as I can. (At my last count over 25 in the past 20 years.) I’ve been an Elder representative at Synod. And, I can tell you first hand that yes, there is a definite prejudice in the treatment of elders at both the Classis level as well as at Synod in our church. Over and over again, I’ve witnessed Ministers of the Word stand up at these church assemblies and babble on over territory already discussed many, many times before and yet the chairs of those assemblies allow them their say. But, consistently, if an elder tried to do the same thing, the chairs of those church assemblies will try to cut them off. At Synod I was seated at a table were several ministers of the word voiced out loud that an elder who was expressing his view on a pertinent issue of the church that was being discussed on the floor of Synod should sit down and be quiet. I kid you not. It flabbergasted me. No one corrected them. On the other hand, I’ve been accused of being “disrespectful” of Ministers of the Word when I disagree with them on the floor of Classis or Synod. So yes, there is a definite intimidation factor at our church assemblies for the Elders who come and this needs to change.
Of course as Reformed believers we believe that “He who wants to be first should be last and he who wants to be master should be servant of all.” We believe this “De jur” but “De Facto” or in practice, it is another thing altogether. There is still a very strong “Domini” attitude in our church that prevents our Elders from airing their opinions in our church assemblies. I’ll be the first to acknowledge that this “Domini” attitude is a two way street. Nevertheless, this is the first thing that needs to change if we expect our Elders to be more of a real participant in these assemblies of our church. But, more importantly, I say this is the first thing to be changed because it is not a Reformed attitude. Our church order states in Article 85; “No church shall in any way lord it over another church, and no officebearer shall lord it over another officebearer.”
As some have said before in this discussion, most Elders may go to Classis or Synod two, three or four times in their lifetimes. This, probably more than anything else, compounds the intimidation problem as well and this too needs to change. We need to plug our Elders into the process of our church government in a more pro-active way. We need to hear them out. We need to include them as part of the process, yes, even to chair the church assembly, if need be. The present process now only disenfranchises them from feeling as if they are real participants. I’ve actually have heard it said that most of our church assemblies are simply union meetings for the pastors.
Posted in: The Old Rugged Cross
To begin with, the old Psalter, before 1936, was just that, only the Geneva Psalters. The CRC didn't sing hymns before that, or at least weren't supposed to. It was somewhere in this time period of the mid thirties that hymns were offically allowed in our churches. Also, because George Bennard was a Methodist preacher with a Salvation Army background this alone would automatically have raised all sorts of alarms in our Reformed movement no matter how great a hymn writer he may have been.
Posted in: Living Confessionally in Covenant
Follow the way of love and eagerly desire gifts of the Spirit, especially prophecy. 1 Cor.14:1
Therefore, my brothers and sisters, be eager to prophesy, and do not forbid speaking in tongues. 1 Cor.14:39
19 Do not quench the Spirit. 20 Do not treat prophecies with contempt 1 Thess.5:19-20
These are a few of the many passages that speak of the expected prophetic nature of the New Testament Church. Even the Pentecost experience of Acts 2 is based on the words of the Prophet Joel declaring the prophetic nature of the church era in these words; “‘In the last days, God says, I will pour out my Spirit on all people. Your sons and daughters will prophesy, your young men will see visions, your old men will dream dreams.18 Even on my servants, both men and women, I will pour out my Spirit in those days, and they will prophesy.”
So what do we do with these very explicit biblical texts that tell us the Apostles themselves understood that a key characteristic of the church was to be its prophetic nature? It is a quandary for many in the church today. The reason is because if we forbid prophecy we almost seem to remove the very thing that was to make the difference between the Old and New Testament eras. Prophecy, according to the prophet Joel, was going to be the defining difference. Prophecy, according to the prophet Joel, was going to be an almost common experience of every believer.
So how do we not quench the Spirit and still be eager to prophesy, not forbidding the speaking in tongues, all the while still doing everything in a fitting and orderly way. It was obviously a very difficult task in the churches under the leadership of the Apostle Paul as can be seen in 1 Corinthians 14 and in my own 40 years of experience a nearly impossible one in the church today. In my opinion, when churches are running rampant with every wind of doctrine and an everyman for himself kind of theologies, the prophetic ends up being a tool of control and spiritual abuse rather than an instrument of love as 1 Corinthians 13 tells us it should be.
So going to the point at hand, the necessity of Creeds and Confessions are what is supposed to keep us biblically and spiritually honest. They lay down a foundation that keeps anything done in the Spirit or the flesh in check. Traditionally, in the Reformed Church, preaching was understood as being prophecy. I also believe much prayer is very prophetic as well. But as for what goes on in many Charismatic churches, what passes for prophecy is often heresy unchecked (although I’ll admit not always). I left my ministry in the Charismatic church to join the CRC over this very issue. There was hardly a prayer meeting or church service I went to that someone would shout out, “Thus sayeth the Lord” and put all sorts of ridiculous, unbibilical and heretical words in God’s mouth totally unchecked and unchallenged by those who we’d consider “Officers of the Church”. I even wrote a paper for a Pastors group on this entitled; “Crises of Conscience.” My main two points were based on two of the Ten Commandments. The first was “Do not take the name of the Lord your God in vain” and the second, the ninth commandment, “Do not bear a false witness” and I added to this, “especially against God”.
So whether we are a charismatic church or not, a solidly confessionally based church makes a lot of sense because, as our Belgic Confession says in Article Seven concerning “The Sufficiency of the Scriptures” that “all human beings are liars by nature and more vain than vanity itself.”
Posted in: Living Confessionally in Covenant
Bev, perhaps we should start another discussion group on the issue of the gifts, prophecy, tongues in the church today but to keep on point here: Can you see my reasons for wanting to be in a confessionally based church? Why I believe it is so important, no matter where you stand on the “Charismatic issue”? It doesn’t matter, the confessions lay a foundation, a common ground upon which we all agree is the way we understand the heart of the Scriptures. As I mentioned in my article in the Banner that I had you read, “Confessions: Why do we need them?” the Apostle Paul warns us to be careful about what foundation we build our faith upon. 1 Cor. 3:10-15 The biggest mistake many people make is the idea that we constantly need a “New and Improved” belief system to be able to draw people to Christ. It is the opposite that is actually true. In the Canon of the Scriptures Paul says in Roman 1:16-17; “For I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God that brings salvation to everyone who believes: first to the Jew, then to the Gentile. 17 For in the gospel the righteousness of God is revealed —a righteousness that is by faith from first to last, just as it is written: “The righteous will live by faith.”
There is much more I could say to all of this but the bottom line is: Can you understand why I so deeply believe that we need to commit to a common understanding, interpretation of the Good News of Jesus that syncs up with the historical body of Christ in the Creeds and the Confessions?
Posted in: Living Confessionally in Covenant
Bev;
I can’t wait to read about the life changing spiritual experience you’ve had. I love to hear about this from people who have come to know our Lord in a deeper spiritual way. I suspect you and I have had similar experiences but there is something here in your reply that makes me wonder what happened to your view of the confessions that perhaps makes them seem dry and unspiritual. (Bad Teachers-No teachers?) You see, I didn’t grow up with them and only came upon them as a young adult in my own spiritual quest for theological and biblical stability. I came to them through a Dutch Theologian named G.C. Berkouwer. I was searching for some spiritual meat rather than the usual experiential emptiness that I had been hearing from the pulpits at the time. When I went through his explanation of the Reformed faith in his 16 volume Reformed Dogmatics a huge light went on for me. After that I read Berkhof , then Calvin’s Institutes, and at least for me, it was only after this that the Bible finally began to make simply sense. You may find it odd that after reading all this heady stuff I’d say that it helped me see the very simple and yet powerful nature of the Good News of Jesus the Messiah. But it really did. This can be a key mistake of some who teach the Reformed faith, sometimes we can get into a situation in our teaching that loses site of the forest for the trees.
A good example of the simple nature of our confessions that I’m referring to is found LD1. “What is your only comfort in Life and death?” I read this to my son when he was seven and he quickly responded, “Jesus”. Exactly, how simple! The LD tells us that salvation is about Jesus and not really about ourselves. The LD answer, “I not my own but belong, body and soul, in life and in death to my Savior, Jesus Christ.” This is, of course from 1 Cor.6. It is the foundation of what our Christian faith is built upon. It is the same as when Jesus says in Luke 9:23-25; ““Whoever wants to be my disciple must deny themselves and take up their cross daily and follow me. 24 For whoever wants to save their life will lose it, but whoever loses their life for me will save it. 25 What good is it for someone to gain the whole world, and yet lose or forfeit their very self?” And the Apostle Paul states that the starting point of being a Christian is to declare, “I have been crucified with Christ and I no longer live, but Christ lives in me. The life I now live in the body, I live by faith in the Son of God, who loved me and gave himself for me.” Gal.2:20
My problem with much of the Charismatic preaching I heard through those decades was that, more often than not, it made salvation sound like it was all about us. It made God sound like he was our genii in a bottle that with the right biblical phrase you can get him to do whatever we wanted him to do rather than the other way around. And even at times it seemed like they’d make the Bible itself sound like a book of magical incantations.
But salvation in Jesus is not about us, it is about Jesus in us, it is about Jesus owning us, transforming us into his likeness. This means death to self every single day. This is not what I had heard from many pulpits in either the Charismatic church community or from many other pulpits anywhere else at the time. But it is in the opening line in our Catechism, declaring what is simply true about being a Christian, “We are not our own but belong to Jesus!” This is our only comfort. Everything else in the Catechism, as well as the Canons and Confessions are all rooted to this one phrase, “We are not our own but belong to Jesus!” This is how simple Reformed and, for that matter, Christian teaching really is-Jesus loves me this I know, for the Bible tells me so.
So hopefully you can appreciate where I’m coming from on this. I have experienced a profound spiritual transformation after finally getting what the very simple message of the Good news of Jesus is. It has helped me and formed me ever since and I wish I could convince others of the power that I have experienced in this spiritual liberation. And I find that the Confessions bring it all home so simply yet profoundly.