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.
For instance, the Synod of the CRC officially endorsed the Micah Statement on Climate Change even though it makes several questionable (and in my opinion false) declarations such as:
"We acknowledge that industrialization, increased deforestation, intensified agriculture and grazing, along with the unrestrained burning of fossil fuels, have forced the earth’s natural systems out of balance. Rapidly increasing greenhouse gas emissions are causing the average global temperature to rise, with devastating impacts already being experienced, especially by the poorest and most marginalized groups. A projected temperature rise of 2°C within the next few decades will significantly alter life on earth and accelerate loss of biodiversity. It will increase the risk and severity of extreme weather events, such as drought, flood, and hurricanes, leading to displacement and hunger. Sea levels will continue to rise, contaminating fresh water supplies and submerging island and coastal communities. We are likely to see mass migration, leading to resource conflicts. Profound changes to rainfall and snowfall, as well as the rapid melting of glaciers, will lead to more water stress and shortages for many millions of people."
The statement also castigates those who (like many conservatives) are skeptical of the science undergirding the claims and even more skeptical of the proposed solution (UN and governmental dictats).
One particular official of the Micah Center, one Dr. David Van Dyke (distinct from the Micah Network and not officially sponsored by the CRC, but still supported) flatly declared that the Bible requires us to support federally funded, single-payer health care systems (according to this report: http://www.crcna.org/news.cfm?newsid=2517§ion=1).
The Contemporary Testimony, in articles 44-54 (with the exception of its statements concerning embryonic research and abortion) apparently adopts almost wholesale the premises and assumptions of the social-welfare state as a requirement of faith.
These are not statements that argue social-welfare or statist policies are the best means to the ends of caring for creation or the poor, but statements that suggest or declare social-welfare, statest policies are the only way to achieve these ends. And they are officially sanctioned by denominational leadership. And that concerns me.
But that would be no solution. I do not seek some fantasy of political balance. What bothers me is the apparent attempt to define the faith as excluding those with certain political and economic opinions.
It's one thing, for instance, to argue that a federally funded, single-payer health care system is the best way to provide for the poor. It is quite another to say that being faithful to the Bible requires such a system. The first is a statement about which Christians may disagree. The second says that if you disagree, you're not Christian.
The Bible says much about taking care of God's creation and work and responsibility and caring for the marginalized of society, it says not a whit about anthropogenic global warming, ethanol subsidies, food stamps or appropriate income tax rates. Would it not perhaps be best for the Church to officially remain silent where the Bible is silent - to espouse, expound upon, promulgate and defend biblical principles while leaving their prudential application to our members?
Of course. Remember the topic of this thread - we're talking political diversity - and if the only applications you can think of are political, you need to get out more.
The manner in which it is applied is also important. Is the preacher saying, "Passage 3 verse 4 says you need to vote for the coming tax increase"? I ask questions, make suggestions, point out salient facts, but I rarely say "chapter X verse Y means you must do Z" and almost never when it comes to political matters.
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.
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.
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.
Judging by the statements themselves, they just avail themselves of the latest left-wing group-speak, put a Christian gloss over it, and send it out. A process implies careful thought, consideration of how this will impact people, and so on. But those statements are laid out in a way that makes it fairly clear that it never occurred to the authors that they might even need to answer cogent arguments from opponents - they assume there aren't any. When the people they hang out with do become aware of disagreement, they simply declare it invalid and unchristian, as in the recent BANNER editorial.
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: Political Diversity
I mean conservative political and economic views.
For instance, the Synod of the CRC officially endorsed the Micah Statement on Climate Change even though it makes several questionable (and in my opinion false) declarations such as:
"We acknowledge that industrialization, increased deforestation, intensified agriculture and grazing, along with the unrestrained burning of fossil fuels, have forced the earth’s natural systems out of balance. Rapidly increasing greenhouse gas emissions are causing the average global temperature to rise, with devastating impacts already being experienced, especially by the poorest and most marginalized groups. A projected temperature rise of 2°C within the next few decades will significantly alter life on earth and accelerate loss of biodiversity. It will increase the risk and severity of extreme weather events, such as drought, flood, and hurricanes, leading to displacement and hunger. Sea levels will continue to rise, contaminating fresh water supplies and submerging island and coastal communities. We are likely to see mass migration, leading to resource conflicts. Profound changes to rainfall and snowfall, as well as the rapid melting of glaciers, will lead to more water stress and shortages for many millions of people."
The statement also castigates those who (like many conservatives) are skeptical of the science undergirding the claims and even more skeptical of the proposed solution (UN and governmental dictats).
One particular official of the Micah Center, one Dr. David Van Dyke (distinct from the Micah Network and not officially sponsored by the CRC, but still supported) flatly declared that the Bible requires us to support federally funded, single-payer health care systems (according to this report: http://www.crcna.org/news.cfm?newsid=2517§ion=1).
The Contemporary Testimony, in articles 44-54 (with the exception of its statements concerning embryonic research and abortion) apparently adopts almost wholesale the premises and assumptions of the social-welfare state as a requirement of faith.
These are not statements that argue social-welfare or statist policies are the best means to the ends of caring for creation or the poor, but statements that suggest or declare social-welfare, statest policies are the only way to achieve these ends. And they are officially sanctioned by denominational leadership. And that concerns me.
UPDATED TO REFLECT CORRECTION BELOW
Posted in: Political Diversity
But that would be no solution. I do not seek some fantasy of political balance. What bothers me is the apparent attempt to define the faith as excluding those with certain political and economic opinions.
It's one thing, for instance, to argue that a federally funded, single-payer health care system is the best way to provide for the poor. It is quite another to say that being faithful to the Bible requires such a system. The first is a statement about which Christians may disagree. The second says that if you disagree, you're not Christian.
The Bible says much about taking care of God's creation and work and responsibility and caring for the marginalized of society, it says not a whit about anthropogenic global warming, ethanol subsidies, food stamps or appropriate income tax rates. Would it not perhaps be best for the Church to officially remain silent where the Bible is silent - to espouse, expound upon, promulgate and defend biblical principles while leaving their prudential application to our members?
Posted in: Political Diversity
Kris V. E. -
Of course. Remember the topic of this thread - we're talking political diversity - and if the only applications you can think of are political, you need to get out more.
The manner in which it is applied is also important. Is the preacher saying, "Passage 3 verse 4 says you need to vote for the coming tax increase"? I ask questions, make suggestions, point out salient facts, but I rarely say "chapter X verse Y means you must do Z" and almost never when it comes to political matters.
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)
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: 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: Commitment to My Immigrant Neighbor
There's a process??
Judging by the statements themselves, they just avail themselves of the latest left-wing group-speak, put a Christian gloss over it, and send it out. A process implies careful thought, consideration of how this will impact people, and so on. But those statements are laid out in a way that makes it fairly clear that it never occurred to the authors that they might even need to answer cogent arguments from opponents - they assume there aren't any. When the people they hang out with do become aware of disagreement, they simply declare it invalid and unchristian, as in the recent BANNER editorial.
Makes it much, much easier.