Josh Christoffels

In case you are wondering the CRC's position on this issue, you can find it here: https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/position-statements/abortion   As you can see, this isn't a question for the CRC: "the church condemns the wanton or arbitrary destruction of any human being at any stage of its development from the point of conception to the point of death." The question is, why would we post an article written by the chairman of the board of Sojourners, a political organization that advocates against our own position, without first informing our readers that this clearly contradicts our agreed upon beliefs?

According to the Church Order Article 29 and the 1975 study committee on the settled and binding nature of our confessions and synodical pronouncements, synod itself determines the settled and binding nature of its decisions. If Synod 2021 passes the recommendation that the church's teaching on sexuality already has confessional status - that statement in itself recognizes this teaching not in the pastoral advice category, but in the confessional category. I don't see anywhere in the Church Order that requires such a specific historical burden of proof.

One additional area that our confessions deal with the term "unchastity" is in Q&A 87 of the Catechism: Q: Can those be saved who do not turn to God from their ungrateful and impenitent ways?  A: By no means, Scripture tells us that no unchaste person, no idolater, adulterer, thief, no covetous person, no drunkard, slanderer, robber, or the like is going to inherit the kingdom of God.
This answer is a quotation of 1 Cor. 6:9-10, but it leaves off the terms "male prostitutes" and "homosexual offenders," presumably because the catechism was to be used as a teaching tool for children. I believe this helps to recognize that our church's teaching on unchastity - an umbrella term that includes the practice of homosexual sex, is not only on a confessional level, but also a Scriptural level, which requires an even greater commitment.

And yet, even matters of pastoral advice are still considered settled and binding. Synod 2004 urged a church in Classis Toronto to act according to the 1973 report. Wasn’t that decision evidence that synod has interpreted this matter as binding? Classis Toronto passed a statement saying that the church’s actions were breaking with the denominational covenant. Synod 2006 approved the work of the In Loco committee that said the same. From what I understand from your Commentary on this, Henry – p. 167 – a delegate can record their negative vote on a decision, but they “must still respect the decision made by the majority and thus the assembly as a whole.” When you speak about avenues of appeal on p. 169, you say this: “Obviously, the proving must not be done to oneself, or to one’s council, or to one’s classis, but to synod. If it were otherwise, we would once again be left with ‘autonomous individuals’ or ‘autonomous local churches.’” Doesn’t this mean that Neland should have first appealed to synod? It’s one thing for a council or individual to disagree with a decision, but that does not mean they have the right to disregard it. Where is the proof that this decision is not in accordance with Scripture?

I love how Lord's Day 40 of the Heidelberg Catechism gives insight into this conversation:
Q 105. What is God's will for you in the sixth commandment?
A: I am not to belittle, insult, hate, or kill my neighbor - not by my thoughts, my words, my look or gesture, and certainly not by actual deeds - and I am not to be party to this in others; rather, I am to put away all desire for revenge. I am not to harm or recklessly endanger myself either. Prevention of murder is also why government is armed with the sword.
Q 106. Does this commandment refer only to killing?
A: By forbidding murder God teaches us that he hates the root of murder: envy, hatred, anger, vindictiveness. In God's sight all such are murder.

Q107. It is enough then that we do not kill our neighbor in any such way?

A: No. By condemning envy, hatred, and anger God tells us to love our neighbors as ourselves, to be patient, peace-loving, gentle, merciful, and friendly to them, to protect them from harm as much as we can, and to do good even to our enemies.

I have a few questions for those in favor of Overture 6 if you wouldn't mind:

1. In your mind is there any limit to what the church can speak to?   What distinguishes the church as institution from any social/political activist group down the street?

2. Do you realize how much hurt and division you are causing by bringing your political viewpoints into the church, especially to those who disagree with you?  Normally in a church setting, I can take communion with people of all kinds of political persuasions.  What binds us together is the gospel in it's true form.  When the church as institution instead of individuals speaks on these issues it elevates these petty political divisions to the level of confession and breaks unity.

3. Why don't you overture to remove Article 28 from the Church Order before making these pronouncements, or at least ask a study committee to report to synod the question of what is included in the term "ecclesiastical"?   

4. What does this overture have to do with the great commission and evangelism, i.e. spreading the good news of the gospel that Jesus has made dead sinners, the spiritually poor, alive and granted them eternal life?  Doesn't speaking on every topic under the sun make it so that you ignore the good news?

In the early Reformation, Calvin and other Reformers were against celebrating any festival days because Rome had so many special days that were not ordained by God in Scripture and these tended to minimize the observance of the Lord's Day.  The Church Order at the Synod of Dort (1618-1619), however, said that congregations shall observe Christmas, Easter, Pentecost, and the days of the Circumcision and Ascension of Christ.  According to a Church Order commentary by Van Dellen and Monsma, "rather than see these days given over to the danger of abuse and frivolity, the churches accommodated themselves to circumstances and began to celebrate these days after a fashion."  Since these were legal holidays in Holland, the church believed that they should hold services on these days "in order to turn a fruitless and harmful idleness into a holy and profitable exercise."  I imagine that at some point along the way, the Church Order added the celebration of Old and New Year's Day and Thanksgiving for the same reason.

I agree with the sentiment that deeper Biblical reflection is needed but I haven't seen it happen.  The Staff at OSJ and CPD have spent countless hours responding to these overtures by writing secret communications to the advisory committee, but how much Biblical reflection has been done?  I would love to see them wrestling with real Biblical questions such as:  Why didn't the New Testament authors write letters of petition to the corrupt Roman government when they had the opportunity to do so?  What did Jesus mean when he said "My kingdom is not of this world" and when he called Peter Satan when he was thinking in political terms instead of Christ's way of the suffering servant on the cross?  Shouldn't Paul's discussion on not eating food sacrificed to idols in 1 Corinthians 8 cause us to refrain from lobbying when it binds the consciences of weaker brothers and sisters?  Does the New Testament's definition of "the poor" pertain primarily to those outside the church or those within it?  How do you square this with 2 Corinthians 9 and James 2 which speak of "supplying the needs of the saints" and clothing brothers and sisters in the church?  

This communication calls for "respect for diversity in healthy congregational life without threatening our deep unity in Christ."  Do we really believe that picking and choosing one political solution will not cause factions within the church?  Diversity and dialogue is only a pipe dream when the echo-chamber of those in power reflects only one voice - their own.