Do Justice, as it is meant in Micah and other places, means "act in accordance with the law of God". In this, then, "Do justice, love mercy" reflect a parallelism common to Hebrew, for to act in accordance with the law of God is to be merciful.
A prime example of what is meant by this is in the way Boaz treats Ruth.
But we have come to define "justice" as "fair" and "getting my rights". So to us the parable of the master with his workers in the vineyard in which the folks who only worked one hour got the same pay as those who worked all day seems "unfair" and therefore "unjust". But even if it is unfair, it is not unjust and it is arguably not even unfair.
So in the "social justice" mindset, there is something terribly unjust when person X has $5 million and person Y has $5000 or $5 - it's unfair on its face. Somehow it's terrible that there's a 1% even if we 99% have access to video equipment, the Internet, food, clothing, shelter, vehicles, education.....
I remember a conversation with a member of my congregation who was complaining a bit about this income inequality and I asked him what difference it made to him - after all, he easily makes 2-3 times what I make and that doesn't bother him. Why does it bother him that somebody else makes 2-3 or even 200 times what he makes? None of us are starving and if that is how God in his providence chooses to dispense his beneficence, what is that to me?
All of us are answerable to God for how we use what is entrusted to us and it's fine to remind each other of that (and to be perfectly honest, I really don't want the responsibility of a multi-million dollar income). Part of how we are to use it is to care for those who are starving. But inequality is a given, not an injustice, and many who shout "Social Justice" - including our own OSJ - can't seem to grasp that.
The word translated as "justice" in both Leviticus and Micah (also the most common word for "justice" in the OT) is "mispat".
The sense of that word is not "fair" as that word has come to be understood in a modern context, that is, equal or even. It is more along the lines of "in accordance with the law", or more specifically, "in accordance with the law of God". Since the law of God does not distinguish among persons on the basis of wealth, status, power, or any other human characteristic, it is most certainly "fair", but that is not the primary purpose of the law.
The words translated as "mercy" (at least in the NIV) are more varied, but the one in Micah 6 is "hesed". Included in the sense of the Hebrew word is "faithful", "loyal", "devout" - all characteristics called for by the law of God. And indeed the law of God is merciful since that law is what requires us to tend to the interests of the poor, the alien, the orphan, the widow, etc.
There is merit in the notion that "justice" pertains to actions and "mercy" to an attitude of the heart, hence "do justice" and "love mercy", but it is also true that - at least in Micah 6 - the latter is intended to build on and expand what is understood by the former.
As to "rights-based" justice, I have come to be very skittish about the word "rights". Justice is not a matter of getting my rights, but a matter of acting in accordance with the law of God. It is not "me-directed" (my rights), but "other-directed" (God's commands). There is an appropriate use of the word "rights" in the context of contingency. If I agree to pay you X dollars in exchange for item Y, then pay you X dollars, I have a right to item Y. But that right is contingent upon my paying you. But when it comes to inherent (aka human) rights, that is not a biblical concept. The poor person does not have a right to my mercy or charity. God has a right to demand that I act mercifully and charitably (he made us and we are his), but neither the poor person nor the rich one has any inherent rights. Unless you mean the right to be damned for eternity (all have sinned and the wages of sin is death).
Social justice, or any other form of justice, understood as this panoply of ever-expanding "human rights" is inherently flawed and is in the long term unsustainable. This understanding of justice not only rejects the concept of mercy, it ultimately rejects the divine basis of the covenant, and therefore of justice and law, rooting them instead in human nature (dignity, image of God, etc.). It is, therefore, decidedly not Reformed and not really even Christian.
I wouldn't say "justice" and "mercy" are synonyms. I say they are, in the context of Micah 6 anyway, parallel concepts. Think of it as a spiral - do justice, love mercy, walk humbly with God - the latter imperatives build on the former, including and enhancing them to develop the fullness of the author's intended conceptualization.
Parallelism in Hebrew writing is not mere repetition with different words.
A partiality for the poor is a perversion of justice - and not particularly merciful to either the wealthy or the poor (and the wealthy, in their own way, need mercy as much as do the poor). We beggar the concept of mercy if we restrict it to those materially less well off.
So I'm not saying we should get rid of the word "mercy" or "justice", but that the two are intimately connected and mutually dependent concepts, not opposed or estranged one from another. I agree that the Belhar (and similar documents) misunderstand both justice and mercy, and that the vision of justice they have is neither biblical nor merciful.
Oh - and in the interests of accuracy, regarding the Micah Center, after stating that the Micah Center is not officially sponsored or approved, "...many CRC individuals and churches help to sponsor it and the CRC’s Office of Social Justice has co-sponsored events with the organization and considers it a regional partner." (from the article referenced above)
So there's a basis for saying it's supported by the CRC, but that doesn't mean the denomination as such gives them money except for specific services and or events.
If Synod were still a deliberative assembly, then much of the difficulties John Z. mentions would be moot. But it isn't. It can't, because there isn't enough time. Synod meets for a week, and that week often becomes little more than 5 days. During that time, there are committee meetings, eating, sleeping, and various other activities necessary to sustain life in some measure of cleanliness and comfort as well as meetings of the full assembly.
The meetings of the full assembly are managed rather closely. Often in the name of avoiding redundancy, deliberation and discussion is curtailed. They've got to get through that whole big agenda in a very short time.
Which means the actual deliberation happens elsewhere - the Board of Trustees, Classis meetings, church councils, offices, comfortable living room chairs, and on the internet at forums like this one. The net effect is that Synod, rather than being a place where matters are deliberated, becomes a place where differing conclusions are negotiated, that is, a political assembly.
In Congress (or parliament, if you like) there is very little deliberation that materially affects the different views among the members. The discussion is not about changing other people's minds but about changing their votes on specific pieces of legislation. This process of negotiation - compromise - can only ever reach temporary conclusions because the relative strength of the various factions and sub-factions are constantly changing. Nothing is ever permanently settled.
This is exactly what you see occurring at Synod in the last 30 years. Things get kicked around, decided, re-decided, undecided, re-decided again, depending on which faction happens to hold sway at this year's synod.
What then happens is you get a few specific individuals who become permanent fixtures at Synod - some delegates, some staff support, some from one or more of the boards or agencies - but they're there year after year after year. They become intimately acquainted with the process and also quite skilled at manipulating that process towards the ends they desire. It's not a 100% thing (sometimes things get away from them, sometimes someone else equally up to snuff on the process out maneuvers them, etc.).
Given this context, it is appropriate for a classis to delegate those who will be able and willing to faithfully and accurately reflect the deliberations that occurred in the delegating body. It is not required, but it is appropriate.
As for the various documents you mention, go ahead on - refer them to the EIRC to ask they be considered for inclusion, or see if your council and/or classis will do so.
The revision should delete the paragraph referencing the Contemporary Testimony.
Article 38 of the CT affirms a consubstantiationist understanding of the Lord's Supper.
Article 47 suggests that human beings, on their own merits, deserve some of the blessings of God.
Article 49 suggests that human sinfulness is not rooted in the human heart, but in a mere object (the Internet).
Article 51 assumes the reality of anthropogenic global warming, despite the unsettled nature of the science at this point.
Article 54 asserts that no matter how few military resources a given nation may have, it needs to reduce its arsenals.
The first three are in direct contradiction of the existing three forms of unity. The latter two of the articles listed above force the CRC to adopt a specific political agenda and effectively excludes people from holding office in the CRCNA not on the basis of their faithfulness to Scripture or the Confessions, but on the basis of their adherence to a political program.
Either these articles should be removed from the CT, or the CT should not be included in the Form of Subscription.
I presume you mean Belgic Confession 35 (there are only 37 articles in the Belgic Confession). But there is a difference.
Art. 38 of OWBtG says, "In the Lord’s Supper, Christ offers his own crucified body and shed blood to his people, assuring them a share in his death and resurrection. By the Holy Spirit, he feeds us with his resurrection life and binds us to each other as we share one loaf and cup. We receive this food gladly, believing, as we eat, that Jesus is our life-giving food and drink and that he will come again to call us to the wedding feast of the Lamb."
Art 35 of the Belgic Confession says, "To represent to us this spiritual and heavenly bread Christ has instituted an earthly and visible bread as the sacrament of his body and wine as the sacrament of his blood...yet we do not go wrong when we say that what is eaten is Christ's own natural body and what is drunk is his own blood, but the manner in which we eat it is not by the mouth but by the Spirit, through faith."
It is also very different from the 1987 language of OWBtG (art. 40) which reads: "In the supper our Lord offers the bread and cup to believers to guarantee our share in his death and resurrection, and to unite us to him and to each other. We take this food gladly, announcing as we eat that Jesus is our life...."
The 2008 revision to OWBtG is far less careful in its language and opens itself to a consubstantiationist reading that is explicitly excluded by the Belgic Confession and carefully avoided by the 1987 version as well.
Art. 47 says there is something inherent in humanity that "deserves" - merits - God's good gifts. Whether it be that we bear the image of God or some other quality, or that we act with sufficient righteousness, it is still placing the source of the blessing in the human being. As we have sinned, regardless of the image of God we bear, we cannot claim to deserve anything in ourselves or by virtue of our nature or our acts. Thus "all people are conceived in sin and born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins..." (Canons, 3-4/art. 3) and thus deserve punishment in this world and the next (Catechism Q&A 12). We deserve nothing - not an education, or food, or warmth, or clothing, or freedom, or anything else.
Art. 49 says the internet distorts our leisure, as you yourself quote. But the internet doesn't do this. It can't. It's just there, like a rock or a computer, and does nothing by itself. Agency, and therefore responsibility, resides in people. People certainly do distort their leisure with the internet, as they have also done it with magazines, photos, newspapers, television, movies, music, books, games, vacations, and so on. But it is people who distort their leisure (and work, for that matter). The source of the sin is in the human heart, not the particular tool or toy they may be using at the moment.
Art. 54 says all nations need to reduce their arsenals. It does not leave room for the possibility that some may need to increase their arsenals to defend themselves. The obvious intent of the article is that governments should lay down the sword entrusted to them by God (Romans 13). The article also makes an error similar to that of Art. 49 for it asserts that weapons threaten. Weapons do nothing, but people with weapons do many things. People have also shown a great deal of ingenuity in what they use for weapons over the years. Article 54 assumes justice and freedom go together (since this is the delimiting factor in reducing their arsenals), but if they did there would be no need for government - government's purpose is to restrain and restrict, since sinful humans left free tend to perpetrate injustice.
To be clear, I don't think the authors are intentionally deviating from Reformed doctrine, confessions, or Scripture. I think they are incredibly careless in the use of language. I also think they are promoting a clear political agenda which, while consistent with Reformed doctrine, is not the only political agenda possible that is consistent with Reformed doctrine. As such, it should not bind the consciences of office bearers in the church.
I can only go by what the document says, and it says we "affirm" the CT and that it "forms and guides" us.
It doesn't allow for disagreement with particulars, reservations, etc. If I take the FoS/Covenant seriously, then I can't say it "forms and guides" me or that I can affirm it without reservation or qualification. I would, then, have to take it up with my council, then classis, and if necessary on to Synod.
I also agree with you that, given it is intended to be "contemporary" and must therefore change on a regular basis, we are in effect asking office bearers to "affirm" a blank check. That's problematic.
It further concerns me that the document is really only available on line. There's a study guide published by Faith Alive, and you might find it in the Acts/Agenda for Synod 2008 when it was revised, assuming you have those handy, but for all intents and purposes it is only available via the technology that distorts our leisure.
And if we adopt the FOS revision as submitted, then in articles 47-54 of the CT we are essentially establishing a political test for office bearers in the church. That's a problem, too, regardless of whether or not it's a political test you could pass.
The easiest thing to do is to delete the reference in the Covenant/FoS revision and leave the CT as it has been up until now.
The document states that the Confessions (Belgic, Heidelberg & Canons) "define the way we understand Scripture, direct the way we live in response to the gospel, and locate us within the larger body of Christ." and that should we come to believe that teachings in those confessional documents are irreconcilable with God's Word, then we will act in conformity with established procedures and submit to the judgment of the Church.
Interesting... What if we think teachings in "Reformed expressions" (i.e., the Contemporary Testimony) are irreconcilable? Then it doesn't matter, even though we "affirm" them and are "formed and guided" by them?
And "irreconcilable" is a broad term. "Believers only" baptism (no infants) is certainly "reconcilable" with God's Word, but I don't believe it's correct. Depending on how strictly you adhere to logic, your willingness to use allegory, how willing you are to base things on a single reference - there's quite a bit that can be "reconciled" with God's Word that I don't think is true. Catholics have become quite adept at justifying mariology on biblical texts, for instance.
So we're no longer even saying that these statements of faith are true, but only that they define us, direct us, and that they can be reconciled with the Bible. We do say (a little later in the revised FoS) that we believe them, will conform our teaching and living to them, and promote their doctrines faithfully. We don't say that about "Reformed expressions", but only that we affirm them, and are formed and guided by them. I'm not sure how "conform our...teaching...and living to" differs significantly from "formed and guided by", or how "believe" is all that different from "affirm", though it is the clear intent of the committee to put the CT on a lower plane.
Frankly, the entire exercise is silly. Why are we going through this? Because it was noted that some office bearers in some councils and classes were refusing to sign the FoS, or were signing it with expressed caveats, and still being seated. How does changing the wording of the FoS fix that? Will these classes or councils be any more ready to actually exercise discipline with their members? It's as if someone complains of hunger so we offer him a clean shirt - that's nice, but it doesn't address the problem.
The Belgic Confession says that the three marks of the church are preaching the Word, administering the sacraments according to that Word, and discipline. When that latter is done in affirmation of the Forms of Unity, the caterwauling is screeching. More often, it just isn't done. Changing the FoS, adding these kinds of weasel-words, adding additional statements that create confusion and ambiguity (Belhar & CT) - all of it is designed to avoid having to take a stand and discipline each other. Avoid that, however, and pretty soon the other marks dissipate, too. Soon we will stand for nothing at all and the CRC will dissolve all together - and deserve to.
I think the first problem is the assertion of a "right to apply". While people may ask for whatever they wish to ask for, and often do, that does not mean either that they have a right to make the request. It's like saying, "people have a right to ask for chocolate syrup". It's incongruous - makes no sense - to describe the behavior as a "right". The article of the Constitution you site merely indicates an assumption on the part of the framers that people wouldask to become citizens.
The fact that people will ask also does not compel any particular answer. I could freely apply to my mother to have ice cream instead of broccoli. She doesn't have to grant my application and, to my knowledge, never did.
The article, then, directs Congress to decide how to answer those requests, but to devise an answer that is "uniform" - that is, consistent and consistently applied. A blanket "no" would meet that requirement. Whether we think that's the best answer or what of the various forms of "maybe" or "yes" we prefer, is immaterial as far as the Constitution is concerned. Only that Congress have a rule, and that it be "uniform".
Posted in: Political Diversity
Do Justice, as it is meant in Micah and other places, means "act in accordance with the law of God". In this, then, "Do justice, love mercy" reflect a parallelism common to Hebrew, for to act in accordance with the law of God is to be merciful.
A prime example of what is meant by this is in the way Boaz treats Ruth.
But we have come to define "justice" as "fair" and "getting my rights". So to us the parable of the master with his workers in the vineyard in which the folks who only worked one hour got the same pay as those who worked all day seems "unfair" and therefore "unjust". But even if it is unfair, it is not unjust and it is arguably not even unfair.
So in the "social justice" mindset, there is something terribly unjust when person X has $5 million and person Y has $5000 or $5 - it's unfair on its face. Somehow it's terrible that there's a 1% even if we 99% have access to video equipment, the Internet, food, clothing, shelter, vehicles, education.....
I remember a conversation with a member of my congregation who was complaining a bit about this income inequality and I asked him what difference it made to him - after all, he easily makes 2-3 times what I make and that doesn't bother him. Why does it bother him that somebody else makes 2-3 or even 200 times what he makes? None of us are starving and if that is how God in his providence chooses to dispense his beneficence, what is that to me?
All of us are answerable to God for how we use what is entrusted to us and it's fine to remind each other of that (and to be perfectly honest, I really don't want the responsibility of a multi-million dollar income). Part of how we are to use it is to care for those who are starving. But inequality is a given, not an injustice, and many who shout "Social Justice" - including our own OSJ - can't seem to grasp that.
Posted in: Political Diversity
The word translated as "justice" in both Leviticus and Micah (also the most common word for "justice" in the OT) is "mispat".
The sense of that word is not "fair" as that word has come to be understood in a modern context, that is, equal or even. It is more along the lines of "in accordance with the law", or more specifically, "in accordance with the law of God". Since the law of God does not distinguish among persons on the basis of wealth, status, power, or any other human characteristic, it is most certainly "fair", but that is not the primary purpose of the law.
The words translated as "mercy" (at least in the NIV) are more varied, but the one in Micah 6 is "hesed". Included in the sense of the Hebrew word is "faithful", "loyal", "devout" - all characteristics called for by the law of God. And indeed the law of God is merciful since that law is what requires us to tend to the interests of the poor, the alien, the orphan, the widow, etc.
There is merit in the notion that "justice" pertains to actions and "mercy" to an attitude of the heart, hence "do justice" and "love mercy", but it is also true that - at least in Micah 6 - the latter is intended to build on and expand what is understood by the former.
As to "rights-based" justice, I have come to be very skittish about the word "rights". Justice is not a matter of getting my rights, but a matter of acting in accordance with the law of God. It is not "me-directed" (my rights), but "other-directed" (God's commands). There is an appropriate use of the word "rights" in the context of contingency. If I agree to pay you X dollars in exchange for item Y, then pay you X dollars, I have a right to item Y. But that right is contingent upon my paying you. But when it comes to inherent (aka human) rights, that is not a biblical concept. The poor person does not have a right to my mercy or charity. God has a right to demand that I act mercifully and charitably (he made us and we are his), but neither the poor person nor the rich one has any inherent rights. Unless you mean the right to be damned for eternity (all have sinned and the wages of sin is death).
Social justice, or any other form of justice, understood as this panoply of ever-expanding "human rights" is inherently flawed and is in the long term unsustainable. This understanding of justice not only rejects the concept of mercy, it ultimately rejects the divine basis of the covenant, and therefore of justice and law, rooting them instead in human nature (dignity, image of God, etc.). It is, therefore, decidedly not Reformed and not really even Christian.
Posted in: Political Diversity
I wouldn't say "justice" and "mercy" are synonyms. I say they are, in the context of Micah 6 anyway, parallel concepts. Think of it as a spiral - do justice, love mercy, walk humbly with God - the latter imperatives build on the former, including and enhancing them to develop the fullness of the author's intended conceptualization.
Parallelism in Hebrew writing is not mere repetition with different words.
A partiality for the poor is a perversion of justice - and not particularly merciful to either the wealthy or the poor (and the wealthy, in their own way, need mercy as much as do the poor). We beggar the concept of mercy if we restrict it to those materially less well off.
So I'm not saying we should get rid of the word "mercy" or "justice", but that the two are intimately connected and mutually dependent concepts, not opposed or estranged one from another. I agree that the Belhar (and similar documents) misunderstand both justice and mercy, and that the vision of justice they have is neither biblical nor merciful.
Posted in: Political Diversity
Thanks for the correction.
Not sure it mitigates the overall point I'm making, but accuracy is a good thing, so again, thanks.
Posted in: Political Diversity
Oh - and in the interests of accuracy, regarding the Micah Center, after stating that the Micah Center is not officially sponsored or approved, "...many CRC individuals and churches help to sponsor it and the CRC’s Office of Social Justice has co-sponsored events with the organization and considers it a regional partner." (from the article referenced above)
So there's a basis for saying it's supported by the CRC, but that doesn't mean the denomination as such gives them money except for specific services and or events.
Posted in: Delegates From Classis Voting Opposite From Classis Vote on an Issue
If Synod were still a deliberative assembly, then much of the difficulties John Z. mentions would be moot. But it isn't. It can't, because there isn't enough time. Synod meets for a week, and that week often becomes little more than 5 days. During that time, there are committee meetings, eating, sleeping, and various other activities necessary to sustain life in some measure of cleanliness and comfort as well as meetings of the full assembly.
The meetings of the full assembly are managed rather closely. Often in the name of avoiding redundancy, deliberation and discussion is curtailed. They've got to get through that whole big agenda in a very short time.
Which means the actual deliberation happens elsewhere - the Board of Trustees, Classis meetings, church councils, offices, comfortable living room chairs, and on the internet at forums like this one. The net effect is that Synod, rather than being a place where matters are deliberated, becomes a place where differing conclusions are negotiated, that is, a political assembly.
In Congress (or parliament, if you like) there is very little deliberation that materially affects the different views among the members. The discussion is not about changing other people's minds but about changing their votes on specific pieces of legislation. This process of negotiation - compromise - can only ever reach temporary conclusions because the relative strength of the various factions and sub-factions are constantly changing. Nothing is ever permanently settled.
This is exactly what you see occurring at Synod in the last 30 years. Things get kicked around, decided, re-decided, undecided, re-decided again, depending on which faction happens to hold sway at this year's synod.
What then happens is you get a few specific individuals who become permanent fixtures at Synod - some delegates, some staff support, some from one or more of the boards or agencies - but they're there year after year after year. They become intimately acquainted with the process and also quite skilled at manipulating that process towards the ends they desire. It's not a 100% thing (sometimes things get away from them, sometimes someone else equally up to snuff on the process out maneuvers them, etc.).
Given this context, it is appropriate for a classis to delegate those who will be able and willing to faithfully and accurately reflect the deliberations that occurred in the delegating body. It is not required, but it is appropriate.
Posted in: Ecumenical Faith Declaration
What constitutes legitimacy in this context?
As for the various documents you mention, go ahead on - refer them to the EIRC to ask they be considered for inclusion, or see if your council and/or classis will do so.
Posted in: Form of Subscription Revision Committee II Report (2012)
The revision should delete the paragraph referencing the Contemporary Testimony.
Article 38 of the CT affirms a consubstantiationist understanding of the Lord's Supper.
Article 47 suggests that human beings, on their own merits, deserve some of the blessings of God.
Article 49 suggests that human sinfulness is not rooted in the human heart, but in a mere object (the Internet).
Article 51 assumes the reality of anthropogenic global warming, despite the unsettled nature of the science at this point.
Article 54 asserts that no matter how few military resources a given nation may have, it needs to reduce its arsenals.
The first three are in direct contradiction of the existing three forms of unity. The latter two of the articles listed above force the CRC to adopt a specific political agenda and effectively excludes people from holding office in the CRCNA not on the basis of their faithfulness to Scripture or the Confessions, but on the basis of their adherence to a political program.
Either these articles should be removed from the CT, or the CT should not be included in the Form of Subscription.
Posted in: Form of Subscription Revision Committee II Report (2012)
I presume you mean Belgic Confession 35 (there are only 37 articles in the Belgic Confession). But there is a difference.
Art. 38 of OWBtG says, "In the Lord’s Supper, Christ offers his own crucified body and shed blood to his people, assuring them a share in his death and resurrection. By the Holy Spirit, he feeds us with his resurrection life and binds us to each other as we share one loaf and cup. We receive this food gladly, believing, as we eat, that Jesus is our life-giving food and drink and that he will come again to call us to the wedding feast of the Lamb."
Art 35 of the Belgic Confession says, "To represent to us this spiritual and heavenly bread Christ has instituted an earthly and visible bread as the sacrament of his body and wine as the sacrament of his blood...yet we do not go wrong when we say that what is eaten is Christ's own natural body and what is drunk is his own blood, but the manner in which we eat it is not by the mouth but by the Spirit, through faith."
It is also very different from the 1987 language of OWBtG (art. 40) which reads: "In the supper our Lord offers the bread and cup to believers to guarantee our share in his death and resurrection, and to unite us to him and to each other. We take this food gladly, announcing as we eat that Jesus is our life...."
The 2008 revision to OWBtG is far less careful in its language and opens itself to a consubstantiationist reading that is explicitly excluded by the Belgic Confession and carefully avoided by the 1987 version as well.
Art. 47 says there is something inherent in humanity that "deserves" - merits - God's good gifts. Whether it be that we bear the image of God or some other quality, or that we act with sufficient righteousness, it is still placing the source of the blessing in the human being. As we have sinned, regardless of the image of God we bear, we cannot claim to deserve anything in ourselves or by virtue of our nature or our acts. Thus "all people are conceived in sin and born children of wrath, unfit for any saving good, inclined to evil, dead in their sins..." (Canons, 3-4/art. 3) and thus deserve punishment in this world and the next (Catechism Q&A 12). We deserve nothing - not an education, or food, or warmth, or clothing, or freedom, or anything else.
Art. 49 says the internet distorts our leisure, as you yourself quote. But the internet doesn't do this. It can't. It's just there, like a rock or a computer, and does nothing by itself. Agency, and therefore responsibility, resides in people. People certainly do distort their leisure with the internet, as they have also done it with magazines, photos, newspapers, television, movies, music, books, games, vacations, and so on. But it is people who distort their leisure (and work, for that matter). The source of the sin is in the human heart, not the particular tool or toy they may be using at the moment.
Art. 54 says all nations need to reduce their arsenals. It does not leave room for the possibility that some may need to increase their arsenals to defend themselves. The obvious intent of the article is that governments should lay down the sword entrusted to them by God (Romans 13). The article also makes an error similar to that of Art. 49 for it asserts that weapons threaten. Weapons do nothing, but people with weapons do many things. People have also shown a great deal of ingenuity in what they use for weapons over the years. Article 54 assumes justice and freedom go together (since this is the delimiting factor in reducing their arsenals), but if they did there would be no need for government - government's purpose is to restrain and restrict, since sinful humans left free tend to perpetrate injustice.
To be clear, I don't think the authors are intentionally deviating from Reformed doctrine, confessions, or Scripture. I think they are incredibly careless in the use of language. I also think they are promoting a clear political agenda which, while consistent with Reformed doctrine, is not the only political agenda possible that is consistent with Reformed doctrine. As such, it should not bind the consciences of office bearers in the church.
Posted in: Form of Subscription Revision Committee II Report (2012)
I can only go by what the document says, and it says we "affirm" the CT and that it "forms and guides" us.
It doesn't allow for disagreement with particulars, reservations, etc. If I take the FoS/Covenant seriously, then I can't say it "forms and guides" me or that I can affirm it without reservation or qualification. I would, then, have to take it up with my council, then classis, and if necessary on to Synod.
I also agree with you that, given it is intended to be "contemporary" and must therefore change on a regular basis, we are in effect asking office bearers to "affirm" a blank check. That's problematic.
It further concerns me that the document is really only available on line. There's a study guide published by Faith Alive, and you might find it in the Acts/Agenda for Synod 2008 when it was revised, assuming you have those handy, but for all intents and purposes it is only available via the technology that distorts our leisure.
And if we adopt the FOS revision as submitted, then in articles 47-54 of the CT we are essentially establishing a political test for office bearers in the church. That's a problem, too, regardless of whether or not it's a political test you could pass.
The easiest thing to do is to delete the reference in the Covenant/FoS revision and leave the CT as it has been up until now.
Posted in: Form of Subscription Revision Committee II Report (2012)
The document states that the Confessions (Belgic, Heidelberg & Canons) "define the way we understand Scripture, direct the way we live in response to the gospel, and locate us within the larger body of Christ." and that should we come to believe that teachings in those confessional documents are irreconcilable with God's Word, then we will act in conformity with established procedures and submit to the judgment of the Church.
Interesting... What if we think teachings in "Reformed expressions" (i.e., the Contemporary Testimony) are irreconcilable? Then it doesn't matter, even though we "affirm" them and are "formed and guided" by them?
And "irreconcilable" is a broad term. "Believers only" baptism (no infants) is certainly "reconcilable" with God's Word, but I don't believe it's correct. Depending on how strictly you adhere to logic, your willingness to use allegory, how willing you are to base things on a single reference - there's quite a bit that can be "reconciled" with God's Word that I don't think is true. Catholics have become quite adept at justifying mariology on biblical texts, for instance.
So we're no longer even saying that these statements of faith are true, but only that they define us, direct us, and that they can be reconciled with the Bible. We do say (a little later in the revised FoS) that we believe them, will conform our teaching and living to them, and promote their doctrines faithfully. We don't say that about "Reformed expressions", but only that we affirm them, and are formed and guided by them. I'm not sure how "conform our...teaching...and living to" differs significantly from "formed and guided by", or how "believe" is all that different from "affirm", though it is the clear intent of the committee to put the CT on a lower plane.
Frankly, the entire exercise is silly. Why are we going through this? Because it was noted that some office bearers in some councils and classes were refusing to sign the FoS, or were signing it with expressed caveats, and still being seated. How does changing the wording of the FoS fix that? Will these classes or councils be any more ready to actually exercise discipline with their members? It's as if someone complains of hunger so we offer him a clean shirt - that's nice, but it doesn't address the problem.
The Belgic Confession says that the three marks of the church are preaching the Word, administering the sacraments according to that Word, and discipline. When that latter is done in affirmation of the Forms of Unity, the caterwauling is screeching. More often, it just isn't done. Changing the FoS, adding these kinds of weasel-words, adding additional statements that create confusion and ambiguity (Belhar & CT) - all of it is designed to avoid having to take a stand and discipline each other. Avoid that, however, and pretty soon the other marks dissipate, too. Soon we will stand for nothing at all and the CRC will dissolve all together - and deserve to.
Posted in: Commitment to My Immigrant Neighbor
Kris V. E. -
I think the first problem is the assertion of a "right to apply". While people may ask for whatever they wish to ask for, and often do, that does not mean either that they have a right to make the request. It's like saying, "people have a right to ask for chocolate syrup". It's incongruous - makes no sense - to describe the behavior as a "right". The article of the Constitution you site merely indicates an assumption on the part of the framers that people would ask to become citizens.
The fact that people will ask also does not compel any particular answer. I could freely apply to my mother to have ice cream instead of broccoli. She doesn't have to grant my application and, to my knowledge, never did.
The article, then, directs Congress to decide how to answer those requests, but to devise an answer that is "uniform" - that is, consistent and consistently applied. A blanket "no" would meet that requirement. Whether we think that's the best answer or what of the various forms of "maybe" or "yes" we prefer, is immaterial as far as the Constitution is concerned. Only that Congress have a rule, and that it be "uniform".