Randy Blacketer

John, with respect, that argument cuts off all discussion, because it makes every theological issue a confessional issue. In that case, the supralapsarians at Dordt could have broken fellowship with infralapsarians. Moreover, the claim that WICO is not a confessional issue, while re-baptism is, is not a personal opinion; it is the official position of the CRCNA. If it were a confessional issue, it would be grounds for leaving the CRCNA. Some have seen it as such and have left the CRCNA.

This argument also implies a harsh judgment on those with whom one disagrees, namely, that they "ignore" or "deny" scriptural precepts. If they did so, they would be worthy of rebuke and discipline. But what if they honestly disagree about the interpretation of scripture, without any wicked intent?

Some guy named John Calvin wrote about the fact that equally diligent and pious persons disagree on the interpretation of scripture, in his dedicatory epistle for his commentary on Romans:

“It is, therefore, presumptuous and almost blasphemous to turn the meaning of scripture around without due care, as though it were some game that we were playing. And yet many scholars have done this at one time. We, have continually found, however, that there is by no means universal agreement even among those who have not been found wanting in zeal for godliness, or piety and moderation in discussing the mysteries of God. God has never so blessed His servants that they each possessed full and perfect knowledge of every part of their subject. It is clear that His purpose in so limiting our knowledge was first that we should be kept humble, and also that we should continue to have dealings with our fellows. Even though it were otherwise highly desirable, we are not to look in the present life for lasting agreement among us on the exposition of passages of scripture. When, therefore, we depart from the views of our predecessors, we are not to be stimulated by any passion for innovation, impelled by any desire to slander others, aroused by any hatred, or prompted by any ambition.”

I hope that we don't accuse those with whom we disagree with presumption and blasphemy, or with playing games with scripture. People honestly struggle with the biblical text and come to different conclusions. I hope that we "continue to have dealings with our fellows," despite our differences.

Regarding "the likes of Piper," well, Piper is very popular among some of our most conservative members. He has some valuable contributions on topics like desiring God and finding joy in God, but I find he often lacks pastoral sensitivity. But the connection is this: Why does the presence of women at classis create an intolerable scandal for some complementarians, in the same way that Piper can read a commentary by a woman but he can't tolerate seeing her offensive female body when she is in a teaching (or pastoral or elder) role? And why can the presence of women be tolerated at synod but not at classis? I work with clergy from other denominations with whom I disagree about a great many things, and yet I still work with them. I have attended classis meetings with persons who, in my estimation, have little use for our Reformed confessions and our denominational covenant in the Church Order, yet I still attend classis meetings. Give me a confessionally Reformed female colleague / elder over a wishy-washy liberal (or emergent or generically evangelical-Fundamentalist) man any day.

My reply no work :(

Full disclosure: I'm appearing in a book with Piper ( http://www.crossway.org/books/from-heaven-he-came-and-sought-her-case/ ). Fuller disclosure: I disagree with Piper on more than a few things. I was in a Sustaining Pastoral Excellence group in which a group of us studied Piper's works and went to hear him speak in the Vancouver area. I found his tone troubling, particularly his public humiliation and criticism of the music leader at the event. But he was nowhere near as offensive as Mark Driscoll, who not only claimed that male leadership of the church was a sine qua non, but also that only urban ministry makes any difference in the world and the kingdom. As the pastor of a vibrant, growing rural church at the time, I found that just a wee bit offensive.

Ephesians 4:5: "There is one body and one Spirit, just as you were called to one hope when you were called; one Lord, one faith, one baptism..." On rebaptism, see St. Augustine's writings on the Donatist controversy, and Martin Luther and John Calvin on the Anabaptists. Even Karl Barth, after he came to reject infant baptism, vigorously repudiated the practice of rebaptism. And note Belgic Confession art. 34: "For this reason we believe that anyone who aspires to reach eternal life ought to be baptized only once without ever repeating it—for we cannot be born twice. Yet this baptism is profitable not only when the water is on us and when we receive it but throughout our entire lives." This position arose not merely from proof-texting, but became the consensus of the church through the crucible of controversy. The principle of sola scriptura does not mean that the Reformed church rejects what the church has learned through its history (a position that is sometimes described as nuda scriptura--scripture in a vacuum). Calvin himself learned this the hard way when he refused, early in his career, to endorse the Athanasian creed, and thus earned the suspicion of being Arian. He quickly remedied this situation. (Forgive my constant use of church history; we church historians can't help it).

In the same way, the statement that WICO is not a confessional matter is the consensus of the CRCNA, and to say so is not "downloading this question to what synod said at one time or another." In fact, (forgive me if I misread it), that sounds contemptuous to me, either to our deliberative process, or to the CRCNA as a whole, or (least importantly) to myself. I find that statement of the Synod eminently "helpful," as it enables persons with differing views on the matter to live together, and it intentionally and with integrity (I would argue) de-escalates the issue. That statement was also borne out of the crucible of controversy. It may be the case that those who believe that it is in fact a confessional matter and that a pro-WICO position is a willful perversion of scripture by persons of ill-will should seek a different denominational home, because that position shuts down all discussion.

The twitter remarks seem particularly unhelpful and also condescending; ironically, I think they manifest what they purport to critique. This topic is not only legitimate (overtures are coming to Synod) but also profoundly important (how can we live and work together with our differences? Can we do so? Does how we do so contribute or detract from our witness to the world?) It's easy to bash others while simultaneously broadcasting an air of spiritual superiority, especially in 140 characters.

That's why it didn't make sense to me. I thought it was about this thread specifically. Never mind.

Do we have the capability of deleting our own comments?

If you want to compare being female to being homosexual, which is a dubious move. So that's one way in which it doesn't "work" for me. The CRCNA holds, along with the bulk of orthodox Christianity, that homosexuality is a disordered form of sexuality (leaving aside the excruciatingly difficult pastoral issues for the moment). One would not want to say that femininity is a disordered form of gender, or a result of sin, would one?

As for the usual pessimistic prognostications of the CRC's inevitable slide into mainline liberalism, witness Synod 2012.

It sounds, frankly, like typical, boring CRC-bashing to me; and this close to mother's day, it's disrespectful to bash someone's mother (mater ecclesia, see Calvin, Institutes, 4.1.1-4). If you came from the GKN, I can see how you might fear this outcome for the CRC, and in the past I have had that same doom-and-gloom attitude, which I think is less than faithful and less than God-honoring, since God is sovereign over his church. I have many relatives by marriage who are members of the GKN, now the PKN. Moreover, the baneful influence of GKN theology from the 1960's has faded from our seminary and many younger pastors, I think, have an appreciation for biblical faithfulness and the confessions that I find encouraging.

My close colleague in the Ev. Lutheran Church in Canada has now joined NALC, the more confessional denomination, and were I in his place I would probably do the same. The ELCIC not only blesses homosexual unions, but has also arguably jettisoned its confessional Lutheran principles in doing so, defining marriage in purely voluntary terms (my colleague shared their report with me). They are also quickly becoming extinct. And our cousins the presbyterians are leaving the PCUSA for ECO, because they are either more confessional, or maybe more likely, because they are more "evangelical." If such a turn of events does happen in the CRCNA, I think there will be a mass exodus from the denomination, not a realignment of classes. That is a church dividing issue. But this misses the point. If the ordination of women is considered such an extreme fault, equivalent to making homosexual unions equivalent to marriage, why remain in the allegedly apostate and ostensibly ever-more-liberal CRCNA?

It's possible, just maybe, that the CRCNA is not yet apostate, is not heading inevitably toward the rejection of its confessional moorings, is not rushing to be mainline, is not moving to identify the gospel with left-wing politics. I think there is a segment of the denomination that would want to push us in that direction, but there is also a segment that would push us in a fundamentalist direction and identify the gospel with right-wing politics.

Because I am very confessionally oriented, I don't want to see the one wing of the church moving toward polarization or schism, and I see this as an intermediate step along that direction.

I once had a member of the URC, who was unhappy about her own congregation and her pastor (who was eventually forced out of the URC for his extreme views), complain to me about the "liberalism" of the CRC. I asked her what she meant. She said "the women in office." I replied, "we might be in error on that matter, but your pastor is preaching theonomy, which is a heresy." And this URC woman, quite well-versed in theology, had to concede the point. We got along pretty famously after that. So, there are various degrees of error. The question for complementarians, who see ordaining women as an error, is whether this error (as they see it) rises to the level of apostasy or a willful denial of biblical authority. If so, they have no business remaining in the CRCNA. If instead they view egalitarians (these terms are both distasteful in my opinion) as sisters and brothers with whom they disagree, that's quite different.

Can complementarians in the CRC also muster up enough humility to give a female colleague the respect due to the office, even if they believe that said female colleage is irregularly ordained to such an office? I don't know that we as a church body have ever been challenged to consider that question.

In any case, on mothers' day, though it's just a Hallmark holiday, let's respect and honor our spiritual mother. It is our obligation under the fifth commandment. My spiritual mother is the CRCNA, part of the church catholic, who evangelized my family into the faith, baptized me into the Christian family, and nurtured me in the Reformed faith.

Thank you for your clarification; it is all too easy to misread someone's posts online. Hartelijk bedank.