AKA Dr. Raymond A. Blacketer. Reformation scholar, sometime professor, native Californian, lover of the Reformed confessions, brought into the Christian Reformed Church through evangelism. Formerly pastor of Neerlandia CRC in Northern Alberta, Canada, and First Cutlerville CRC, Byron Center. Currently working as a theological editor and translator.
Thanks, Ken. I would not want to say that Kevin DeYoung is being disingenuous, any more than others who have some concerns about the Belhar, including myself. To disagree is not to be disingenuous. Disingenous means "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere." Kevin might be wrong, but he's not insincere.
The historical fact is, as some church leaders have observed, that Marxist-influenced Liberation Theology does come through, especially in that one article of the Belhar, and which has to be significantly qualified in order to be squared with a biblical definition of justice, found in Leviticus 19:15: "Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly." Another historical fact is that one of the main authors of the Confession, A. Boesack, has insisted that one implication of Belhar is that the church embrace and affirm homosexuality (homosexual behavior), and even resigned his church offices over the matter. If the primary author of the confession declares that the implication of Belhar is the embrace of homosexuality, then there is good reason to doubt the “theological adequacy” of this confession, as Richard Mouw and others have argued. (http://www.netbloghost.com/mouw/?p=108 ) . So, my basic point is this: People of integrity can have serious concerns and disagreements about this confession without being "disingenuous," and without being opposed to social justice, unconcerned about racism and the poor and oppressed, etc. I react with moral outrage and indignation when I go back and study what happened at a certain school in the Chicago suburbs, disallowing the admission of African-American students. But for some of us, we are very concerned about the wording of the confession itself, among other things. I also understand that pastors and theologians of integrity do not agree with me on this, and have arguments to counter those above. But I don''t think they/we are disingenuous. We might be wrong, but not insincere.
And I think it is the "among other things" that shapes opinion on both sides of the debate (though the debate probably has more than two sides, with various shades of nuance and/or unsettled opinions). For example, some are concerned that we maintain good ecumenical relations with other churches; which I would agree with, but for me it is not adequate grounds for adopting a confession that is, in my judgment, somewhat weak and ambiguous and also highly localized in its context and application. Who doesn't agree that Apartheid was a damnable practice, supported by reprehensible theological principles? I think the CRC has treated the real problem of racism very well in its synodical actions and in the Contemporary Testimony.
One of the "other things" pertains to the identity of the CRC, which is one of my "issues" personally. I was nicely in the confessional middle of the CRC when the 1990's came along and many of the hardliners left the CRC for the United Reformed Church (URC); I freely confess that I still feel anger about that schism. Now I feel like I am uncomfortably on the "right," to use the term loosely, though there are still a number of CRC folk who are much more "conservative" than I, which gives me some comfort (e.g. I am pro-women's ordination, and I changed my mind on children at communion, too--but only after careful biblical-theological reflection, which for me is paramount). This is all a long way of saying that I personally want to see my church, the CRC, steer a middle course, a confessional course, between North American Evangelicalism / Fundamentalism on the one had and Mainline liberalism on the other. I am neither a fundamentalist nor a liberal; I am confessionally Reformed, and in a way that is particularly shaped by the CRCNA, into which my mom and sister and I were evangelized in 1976. I was heartened by James KA Smith's Banner article on the subject. As a convert to the CRC in my childhood, I have a close personal attachment to the distinct riches of the CRC and a deep emotional attachment to what I see as its core principles. I think the Belhar pushes us further into the mainline-liberal direction. This is also why I do not support a CRC-RCA merger, though it's obvious to me that we should work as closely as possible together. I also mourn the disconnection from NAPARC, even though I don't agree with those guys on women's ordination. I wholeheartedly support ecumenical efforts (Dan Meinema and I, though we don't necessarily agree on Belhar, regularly meet with pastors of other traditions to study the Lectionary, and I think I speak for both of us when I say what a blessing it is to learn from other strands of the Christian tradition, and also to share our own peculiar treasures). But confessing one holy catholic and apostolic church does not necessarily require institutional unity, nor is it always healthy to push for that, in my judgment; nor does it require adopting each other's confessions. Moreover, we can support our sister church in South Africa without adopting their very particular and contextual confession as our own; in fact, I've heard one missiologist make the argument that to do so might actually be condescending to them and smack just a wee bit of colonialism on our part.
Also something that would be of great import for me as an ordained pastor in the CRC is whether I would in good conscience be able to subscribe wholeheartedly and robustly to this confession, as I do with the three forms of unity. Would I have to file a gravamen, and if so, would it be a confessional-difficulty gravamen (and I can already see the response: we don't mean by the Belhar what you think it means), or a confessional revision gravamen (which would be doomed to failure, most likely). Or would I subscribe with a Jesuit ethic of mental reservation? Or would I just practice some really massive self-differentiation and say I only subscribe to the Belhar quatenus (a technical term for agreeing with something "insofar as" it reflects the teachings of scripture, which is not really the way of integrity). Is there a grandfather clause? Obviously I don't have that sorted out yet.
I said earlier I am not on this forum to debate the Belhar; but I do appreciate the opportunity to share some of my own personal feelings and struggles with this issue, and I hope that it remains a safe place to express those things, without recriminations or questioning people's motives, wherever they may come down on the issue.
Kevin DeYoung, The Belhar Confession: Yea or Nay or even better: Why Not Belhar? Note the final paragraph: The Belhar Confession, for all its good words and noble intentions, creates more problems in the RCA than it solves. A “no” on Belhar is not a “no” to multiculturalism, learning from the global South, or racial reconciliation. It is a “no” to an ambiguous, open-ended document that, despite the relentless and one-sided efforts of the RCA leadership, is better left as a statement of South African courage than a binding confession that defines us a denomination for years, decades, and possibly centuries to come.”
I have to agree with PDR on this one. I appreciate James Dekker's comments, as reported at Synod:
Initially, synod discussed going into executive session to talk about the resignation. But Rev. James Dekker, president of Synod 2011, said he urged delegates not to discuss the issue behind closed doors.
Dekker said it was important for synod to be transparent, since a seeming lack of transparency had already caused concern in the denomination and led to rumors and gossip.
“I would like to deal with this report in candor and appropriate love and remain in full session as long as possible,” said Dekker. Should the discussion get too personal, he said, he would call for an executive session, but both he and the advisory committee thought it would not be necessary.
Although we still have no idea what's broken in our denominational leadership, and we have a right to know, because we are stakeholders in this church.
"We have an obligation to trust those who are called and appointed by God and through the affirmation of the body of Christ. In this case the Board of Trustees and the Advisory Committee of Synod are the one who have been called and appointed to deal with this painful situation."
In other words, the boards are not really accountable to the churches. I don't think so. It sounds like you are describing the Vatican. Our councils (where church authority is original, according to our Church Order, art. 27) and Classes need to hold those at the top accountable,and to be aware of how institutions (including church institutions) tend to be come dysfunctional. We have the responsibility to hold our leadership accountable, not to follow in blind trust. And we need enough information to do so. Moreover, we are stakeholders in the ministry of the denomination; this idea is not the incursion of some democratic ideal, but the basic principle of presbyterian and reformed polity.
With all the talk of a dysfunctional "culture" that is coming out of the BOT and the Synod, it is obvious we need some serious intervention with our agency leadership. Agencies that are battling each other over turf (which is widely reported, even in The Banner) have not earned our trust, and again, need to be held accountable. Simply demanding people follow in blind faith (faith in agencies, not faith in God) is neither responsible nor effective in creating denominational awareness and loyalty, which is seriously eroded among the membership, who are indeed the stakeholders of the denomination. The widening gap between congregations and the denomination is a matter of serious concern.
I hope the task force set up to review the denominational structure will take seriously Bob De Moor and Gayla R. Postma's editorial in The Banner, "Denominational Governance: Time to Get Back to Reformed Basics."
They report that former Calvin College president Anthony Diekema spoke to the BOT and observed that the CRC structure was “ 'the most bizarre organization I’ve ever seen. . . . The governance is redundant, competitive, independent. Administrative authority is shared at best, nonexistent at worst.' Diekema said the agencies would need to shift from a culture of independence to one of common cause."
I think the churches do in fact need to know, at least in general. There is a troubling amoung of opacity at the "top," compounded now by the resignation of the director of denominational ministries. Transparency is in order. Otherwise, the chasm between the churches and the head office and agencies will only widen. The stakeholders in the CRCNA are the congregations; we have a right to know, and a right to make decisions based on what we know. If it is a difference of vision, we need to participate in the defining and affirming of that vision. The agencies and boards have been operating in a way that is both too independent of and opaque to the congregations and classes of the church. Too much power has drifted to the top.
I really appreciate and resonate with these reflections. Even though I don't use the TULIP acronym (because I don't think it does a good job of communicating what the Canons of Dordt actually teach) I really find that young adults have a hunger for the Reformed faith that sometimes we find stale or irrelevant. I'm glad to see signs that the tide is turning. I am a product of Home Missions evangelism myself, and it was the depth of the Reformed faith by which God grabbed us and held us.
My former professor H. Evan Runner was not a theologian; in fact he had a certain disdain for theology and was disappointed in me when I chose theology over philosophy, which in the "Reformational" tradition is the de facto "Queen of the Sciences." By the way, the Greeks separated body and soul, but the Hebrews distinguished them and did not fall into the monism or denial of the intermediate state (which is heresy) that Vollenhoven and some of his followers did.
The seminary cannot do all those things; its primary job is to train pastors to preach, teach, lead worship, and provide pastoral care. That's why there are broad PRE-seminary requirements which we had to go through (and at least in my day they were substantial, even burdensome). But I agree that pastors must continue to be learning as much as they can about their parishioners' lives. Pastors must always be learning and experiencing new things in order to practically and relevantly apply what they learn in seminary.
Jim, who has ever heard of Georgetown, ON? That's why we didn't show up. It's a long drive from Neerlandia. :)
But more seriously, I think the Seminary is excelling in this regard: witness the volume that we received, Delight in Creation, put out by the Center for Excellence in Preaching, and Scott Hoezee, whose office happens to be at CTS.
Pastors, moreover, I think also do their best to keep up with all kinds of aspects of everyday life; but we cannot literally be all things to all people, even if the apostle Paul could. Pastors regularly face questions about the relation of their faith to science, work, politics, economics, labor and/or labour, the recent resurgence in aggressive atheism, etc., especially, in my experience, among youth and young adults. When I was in seminary I might have been tempted to think that my courses in philosophical theology and apologetics were a hoop I had to jump through; now with the resurgence in atheism, those courses seem to be exceptionally relevant, and directly connected with pastoral care and discipleship, again, particularly with young adults and college/university students, who are asking, or being asked, tough philosophical and existential questions about God and the Christian faith.
I think John van Sloten's work is a reminder and encouragement for us pastors, not to become scientists, but to remain engaged with our people, for one thing, and secondly, to be lifelong learners, if we expect our parishioners to also continue to learn the ways of Christ (i.e. discipleship). We won't all do it the same way John does, but we don't have to, which is a good thing, because we can't all be as cool as John is (and he really is; I recently watched an interview on YouTube that John did with a young man who is married to one of my former parishioners about online gaming addiction--it was very good). But we all have our strengths and God can use all of us in different ways.
One challenge, I think, is that the pastoral ministry requires us to be extroverts, but it tends to attract introverts. (Also, you should never make generalizations! :) ) But this can be to our advantage, as long as we use that introverted part of ourselves (if that applies) to learning and growing; and then also make the effort to really engage in the lives of the people whom God has entrusted to our pastoral care.
I'm glad you're keeping this conversation going. Your point that "Synod is a poor type of body to govern agencies" seems right on. With all due respect to the individuals involved, the recent appointment of the deputy Executive Director is puzzling if in fact the denomination is seeking change. It seems like more of the same for the foreseeable future. We have an entrenched system that is manifestly dysfunctional and highly resistant to change.
By the way I want one of those cultural shirts, size M. Oh, sorry, you meant cultural shift. ;)
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
http://www.rca.org/Page.aspx?pid=6245
Posted in: The Love of God in Belhar?
Thanks, Ken. I would not want to say that Kevin DeYoung is being disingenuous, any more than others who have some concerns about the Belhar, including myself. To disagree is not to be disingenuous. Disingenous means "lacking in frankness, candor, or sincerity; falsely or hypocritically ingenuous; insincere." Kevin might be wrong, but he's not insincere.
The historical fact is, as some church leaders have observed, that Marxist-influenced Liberation Theology does come through, especially in that one article of the Belhar, and which has to be significantly qualified in order to be squared with a biblical definition of justice, found in Leviticus 19:15: "Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly." Another historical fact is that one of the main authors of the Confession, A. Boesack, has insisted that one implication of Belhar is that the church embrace and affirm homosexuality (homosexual behavior), and even resigned his church offices over the matter. If the primary author of the confession declares that the implication of Belhar is the embrace of homosexuality, then there is good reason to doubt the “theological adequacy” of this confession, as Richard Mouw and others have argued. (http://www.netbloghost.com/mouw/?p=108 ) . So, my basic point is this: People of integrity can have serious concerns and disagreements about this confession without being "disingenuous," and without being opposed to social justice, unconcerned about racism and the poor and oppressed, etc. I react with moral outrage and indignation when I go back and study what happened at a certain school in the Chicago suburbs, disallowing the admission of African-American students. But for some of us, we are very concerned about the wording of the confession itself, among other things. I also understand that pastors and theologians of integrity do not agree with me on this, and have arguments to counter those above. But I don''t think they/we are disingenuous. We might be wrong, but not insincere.
And I think it is the "among other things" that shapes opinion on both sides of the debate (though the debate probably has more than two sides, with various shades of nuance and/or unsettled opinions). For example, some are concerned that we maintain good ecumenical relations with other churches; which I would agree with, but for me it is not adequate grounds for adopting a confession that is, in my judgment, somewhat weak and ambiguous and also highly localized in its context and application. Who doesn't agree that Apartheid was a damnable practice, supported by reprehensible theological principles? I think the CRC has treated the real problem of racism very well in its synodical actions and in the Contemporary Testimony.
One of the "other things" pertains to the identity of the CRC, which is one of my "issues" personally. I was nicely in the confessional middle of the CRC when the 1990's came along and many of the hardliners left the CRC for the United Reformed Church (URC); I freely confess that I still feel anger about that schism. Now I feel like I am uncomfortably on the "right," to use the term loosely, though there are still a number of CRC folk who are much more "conservative" than I, which gives me some comfort (e.g. I am pro-women's ordination, and I changed my mind on children at communion, too--but only after careful biblical-theological reflection, which for me is paramount). This is all a long way of saying that I personally want to see my church, the CRC, steer a middle course, a confessional course, between North American Evangelicalism / Fundamentalism on the one had and Mainline liberalism on the other. I am neither a fundamentalist nor a liberal; I am confessionally Reformed, and in a way that is particularly shaped by the CRCNA, into which my mom and sister and I were evangelized in 1976. I was heartened by James KA Smith's Banner article on the subject. As a convert to the CRC in my childhood, I have a close personal attachment to the distinct riches of the CRC and a deep emotional attachment to what I see as its core principles. I think the Belhar pushes us further into the mainline-liberal direction. This is also why I do not support a CRC-RCA merger, though it's obvious to me that we should work as closely as possible together. I also mourn the disconnection from NAPARC, even though I don't agree with those guys on women's ordination. I wholeheartedly support ecumenical efforts (Dan Meinema and I, though we don't necessarily agree on Belhar, regularly meet with pastors of other traditions to study the Lectionary, and I think I speak for both of us when I say what a blessing it is to learn from other strands of the Christian tradition, and also to share our own peculiar treasures). But confessing one holy catholic and apostolic church does not necessarily require institutional unity, nor is it always healthy to push for that, in my judgment; nor does it require adopting each other's confessions. Moreover, we can support our sister church in South Africa without adopting their very particular and contextual confession as our own; in fact, I've heard one missiologist make the argument that to do so might actually be condescending to them and smack just a wee bit of colonialism on our part.
Also something that would be of great import for me as an ordained pastor in the CRC is whether I would in good conscience be able to subscribe wholeheartedly and robustly to this confession, as I do with the three forms of unity. Would I have to file a gravamen, and if so, would it be a confessional-difficulty gravamen (and I can already see the response: we don't mean by the Belhar what you think it means), or a confessional revision gravamen (which would be doomed to failure, most likely). Or would I subscribe with a Jesuit ethic of mental reservation? Or would I just practice some really massive self-differentiation and say I only subscribe to the Belhar quatenus (a technical term for agreeing with something "insofar as" it reflects the teachings of scripture, which is not really the way of integrity). Is there a grandfather clause? Obviously I don't have that sorted out yet.
I said earlier I am not on this forum to debate the Belhar; but I do appreciate the opportunity to share some of my own personal feelings and struggles with this issue, and I hope that it remains a safe place to express those things, without recriminations or questioning people's motives, wherever they may come down on the issue.
More discussion of the Belhar can be found here:
Posted in: The 'Resignation' of Our Executive Director
I have to agree with PDR on this one. I appreciate James Dekker's comments, as reported at Synod:
Initially, synod discussed going into executive session to talk about the resignation. But Rev. James Dekker, president of Synod 2011, said he urged delegates not to discuss the issue behind closed doors.
Dekker said it was important for synod to be transparent, since a seeming lack of transparency had already caused concern in the denomination and led to rumors and gossip.
“I would like to deal with this report in candor and appropriate love and remain in full session as long as possible,” said Dekker. Should the discussion get too personal, he said, he would call for an executive session, but both he and the advisory committee thought it would not be necessary.
Although we still have no idea what's broken in our denominational leadership, and we have a right to know, because we are stakeholders in this church.
Posted in: The 'Resignation' of Our Executive Director
"We have an obligation to trust those who are called and appointed by God and through the affirmation of the body of Christ. In this case the Board of Trustees and the Advisory Committee of Synod are the one who have been called and appointed to deal with this painful situation."
In other words, the boards are not really accountable to the churches. I don't think so. It sounds like you are describing the Vatican. Our councils (where church authority is original, according to our Church Order, art. 27) and Classes need to hold those at the top accountable,and to be aware of how institutions (including church institutions) tend to be come dysfunctional. We have the responsibility to hold our leadership accountable, not to follow in blind trust. And we need enough information to do so. Moreover, we are stakeholders in the ministry of the denomination; this idea is not the incursion of some democratic ideal, but the basic principle of presbyterian and reformed polity.
With all the talk of a dysfunctional "culture" that is coming out of the BOT and the Synod, it is obvious we need some serious intervention with our agency leadership. Agencies that are battling each other over turf (which is widely reported, even in The Banner) have not earned our trust, and again, need to be held accountable. Simply demanding people follow in blind faith (faith in agencies, not faith in God) is neither responsible nor effective in creating denominational awareness and loyalty, which is seriously eroded among the membership, who are indeed the stakeholders of the denomination. The widening gap between congregations and the denomination is a matter of serious concern.
I hope the task force set up to review the denominational structure will take seriously Bob De Moor and Gayla R. Postma's editorial in The Banner, "Denominational Governance: Time to Get Back to Reformed Basics."
They report that former Calvin College president Anthony Diekema spoke to the BOT and observed that the CRC structure was “ 'the most bizarre organization I’ve ever seen. . . . The governance is redundant, competitive, independent. Administrative authority is shared at best, nonexistent at worst.' Diekema said the agencies would need to shift from a culture of independence to one of common cause."
http://www.thebanner.org/departments/article/?id=3296
Posted in: The 'Resignation' of Our Executive Director
I think the churches do in fact need to know, at least in general. There is a troubling amoung of opacity at the "top," compounded now by the resignation of the director of denominational ministries. Transparency is in order. Otherwise, the chasm between the churches and the head office and agencies will only widen. The stakeholders in the CRCNA are the congregations; we have a right to know, and a right to make decisions based on what we know. If it is a difference of vision, we need to participate in the defining and affirming of that vision. The agencies and boards have been operating in a way that is both too independent of and opaque to the congregations and classes of the church. Too much power has drifted to the top.
Posted in: The 'Resignation' of Our Executive Director
Note the important editorial by Bob DeMoor and Gayla Postma:
http://www.thebanner.org/departments/article/?id=3296
Posted in: How Helpful are Disagreements?
#1 I disagree with anything Ron Knol says ;)
#2 Disregard #1. Ron has been a very wise counselor in difficult times. And all pro bono.
#3 Here is a great resource: http://www.mennoniteusa.org/resource-center/resources/agreeing-and-disagreeing-in-love/
Posted in: Do Pastors Need Professional Supervision?
Ken, I would forward this to the director of mentored ministries at Calvin Seminary.
Also, would a "spiritual director," as we find in other traditions, help to fill this role?
Posted in: Where Have All the Tulips Gone?
I really appreciate and resonate with these reflections. Even though I don't use the TULIP acronym (because I don't think it does a good job of communicating what the Canons of Dordt actually teach) I really find that young adults have a hunger for the Reformed faith that sometimes we find stale or irrelevant. I'm glad to see signs that the tide is turning. I am a product of Home Missions evangelism myself, and it was the depth of the Reformed faith by which God grabbed us and held us.
Posted in: Why Seminaries Need Scientists, Artists, Economists and Athletes on Staff
My former professor H. Evan Runner was not a theologian; in fact he had a certain disdain for theology and was disappointed in me when I chose theology over philosophy, which in the "Reformational" tradition is the de facto "Queen of the Sciences." By the way, the Greeks separated body and soul, but the Hebrews distinguished them and did not fall into the monism or denial of the intermediate state (which is heresy) that Vollenhoven and some of his followers did.
The seminary cannot do all those things; its primary job is to train pastors to preach, teach, lead worship, and provide pastoral care. That's why there are broad PRE-seminary requirements which we had to go through (and at least in my day they were substantial, even burdensome). But I agree that pastors must continue to be learning as much as they can about their parishioners' lives. Pastors must always be learning and experiencing new things in order to practically and relevantly apply what they learn in seminary.
Posted in: Why Seminaries Need Scientists, Artists, Economists and Athletes on Staff
Jim, who has ever heard of Georgetown, ON? That's why we didn't show up. It's a long drive from Neerlandia. :)
But more seriously, I think the Seminary is excelling in this regard: witness the volume that we received, Delight in Creation, put out by the Center for Excellence in Preaching, and Scott Hoezee, whose office happens to be at CTS.
Pastors, moreover, I think also do their best to keep up with all kinds of aspects of everyday life; but we cannot literally be all things to all people, even if the apostle Paul could. Pastors regularly face questions about the relation of their faith to science, work, politics, economics, labor and/or labour, the recent resurgence in aggressive atheism, etc., especially, in my experience, among youth and young adults. When I was in seminary I might have been tempted to think that my courses in philosophical theology and apologetics were a hoop I had to jump through; now with the resurgence in atheism, those courses seem to be exceptionally relevant, and directly connected with pastoral care and discipleship, again, particularly with young adults and college/university students, who are asking, or being asked, tough philosophical and existential questions about God and the Christian faith.
I think John van Sloten's work is a reminder and encouragement for us pastors, not to become scientists, but to remain engaged with our people, for one thing, and secondly, to be lifelong learners, if we expect our parishioners to also continue to learn the ways of Christ (i.e. discipleship). We won't all do it the same way John does, but we don't have to, which is a good thing, because we can't all be as cool as John is (and he really is; I recently watched an interview on YouTube that John did with a young man who is married to one of my former parishioners about online gaming addiction--it was very good). But we all have our strengths and God can use all of us in different ways.
One challenge, I think, is that the pastoral ministry requires us to be extroverts, but it tends to attract introverts. (Also, you should never make generalizations! :) ) But this can be to our advantage, as long as we use that introverted part of ourselves (if that applies) to learning and growing; and then also make the effort to really engage in the lives of the people whom God has entrusted to our pastoral care.
Posted in: Drama Queen
I'm glad you're keeping this conversation going. Your point that "Synod is a poor type of body to govern agencies" seems right on. With all due respect to the individuals involved, the recent appointment of the deputy Executive Director is puzzling if in fact the denomination is seeking change. It seems like more of the same for the foreseeable future. We have an entrenched system that is manifestly dysfunctional and highly resistant to change.
By the way I want one of those cultural shirts, size M. Oh, sorry, you meant cultural shift. ;)