I just redid my curriculum this year and have had several people of all different ages go through it these last couple of months. So far it's gone well.
For the first four sessions, I took the questions we ask professing members and broke them down into their various clauses, and used elements from our Confessions and scriptures in response to each question. I go through each session with the applicant and explain & discuss each section.
Session 5 focuses on sacraments, and the final section reviews the commitments a person is making to our particular congregation when becoming a member.
No, I don't really prep them to help organize their own story. Our big emphasis any time we get to sit down with people - not just these prospective members - is to practice conveying what Christianity is all about in a minute or less, as if they were describing it to their friends at lunch. Not only is this a good indicator of how well people know the gospel themselves, but it also preps us to fulfill our mandate to share it. It's fun to hear how many different ways the same truths can be communicated!
I'll often ask a couple of the elders to give their own rendition of the 1 minute gospel after the people being interviewed go. I usually make it a bit tougher on them by putting them in a hypothetical situation, like sharing with a super skeptical person or someone outcast from society. It's good for everyone involved to see that even the elders trip over their words a bit addressing difficult situations!
"But the only official confession... we really need anymore, as far as I can tell, is the one scripture suggests in Romans 10:9: Jesus is Lord."
The problem with this line of thinking is that even our LDS neighbors are quick to say the same exact thing. Except they define the words "Jesus" and "Lord" quite differently than the historic Christianity does. There's a reason the apostle didn't start of the book of Romans with this confession- first he defined the terms. And as excellent as the book of Romans is, it still depends on a bunch of presuppositions taught elsewhere in scripture.
This is the value of having confessions- so that we can all agree together on what scripture 'says' regarding core doctrines of the faith. It would not be difficult to demonstrate the chaos that ensues within the Christian church when this common understanding is lost.
I've been teaching the Confessions to 8th graders for most of 20 years, and there's a lot more than LD1 that sticks with them.
Also, the fact that you would conclude that Confessions "only real function is coercive" indicates you really need to spend some time re-reading (or perhaps reading?) them. I'm not trying to be snarky here, but it's beginning to really bother me that some of the most vocal opponents to confessionalism seem to be so ignorant of what they are criticizing.
You are right about one thing- "The confessions will never live again in the CRC." What a shame.
Excellent post, although we could have a good discussion over a cold beer regarding your third proposal.
"This requires that we figure out how to wed this reality with our inherited confessional system and make these new practices intelligible to those who have no experience in our inherited confessional system."
This is the biggest challenge we have, both in our Reformed churches and Christian schools. As elders and ministers in the CRC we need to look back at our Dutch (and other) ancesestors who gave us such a rich heritage and not ask "What did they do?", but instead ask "What would they do now?"
The author asks the question "how far have we come in women’s ordination?" As we approach another watershed moment in the CRC pertaining to whether or not the Church will fulfill her obligation in regards disciplining officebearers who are living unrepentantly sinful lifestyles, perhaps the better question to ask is "how far have we gone since women's ordination?"
For those of us who continue to lament this decision 25 years later, please understand that our convictions are not driven by our "context" as the author suggests. Nor is it driven by misogyny, a quest to maintain patriarchy or any other egregious motivations as is often assumed.
Rather, our conviction is driven by a deep desire to remain faithful to scripture as interpreted by solid exegesis and a commitment to orthodox hermeneutical methods that have stood the test of time for nearly 2,000 years - that is until the doctrines borne out of this commitment came into conflict with the 'enlightened' ideas of the late 20th century.
I really do not desire to enter into an online feud with anybody or rain on your parade, I just tire of seeing people who still value orthodox hermeneutics continually being portrayed as a "wall" that needs to be broken through.
I'm not sure I understand the point of this challenge. Do all of the words in the confessions need a synod approved definition before I can understand their prima facie meaning (not to mention what the author expressly meant to be understood by the word)? As an exegete, I work hard to determine to understand the words as the authors used them, not necessarily as they are defined by deliberative bodies.
I'm not trying to be snarky here... knowing this will help me in this discussion. What other confessional words has synod defined? Off the top of my head I can think of the efforts to change the meaning of QA 80, but when else have we done this?
In the 90's we had separated our Council into three groups: Shepherding Elders, Administrative Elders & Deacons, and Service Deacons. This resulted in a council of over 25 men, which was way too big of a group. Each component needed to have a liaison to the other groups and to various committees, yet the right hand never knew what the left hand was doing, and morale was suffering.
Last year we reduced our council to simply elders and deacons, and reduced each group to 5 men. They have longer terms which helps facilitate better relationships, especially between the elders and their district families. Because we don't have as many seats to fill, we can find guys who truly have a passion to serve in this way.
We also set up a board of trustees consisting of 4 people. This group handles all of the business functions of the church and is appointed by and reports to the Council. We are a complementarian church, so this group also gives the opportunity for women to serve in leadership. Having this group allows the elders and deacons to just concentrate on their core responsibilities of shepherding the congregation and serving them diaconally.
These changes have made a tremendous improvement in our operation, and in the morale and effectiveness of our leadership teams.
Having taught our Confessions to students for nearly two decades, I would love the opportunity to sit down over a cup of coffee with you and explain why your anlysis of the passages you mentioned from the HC and BC is patently incorrect, however, this particular forum is neither the time or place for that discussion.
Your main argument seems to be that our Confessions were "in fact written in response to a specific set of circumstances." This is of course true, yet it misses Doug's point that though they were written within certain contexts, the topics the Confessions address are not, for the most part, contextually bound. I qualify that statement because all three do make passing references to contemporary issues of their day, and although I agree with their conclusions (both then and now), I would also concede that these references are the weakest elements of the 3 Forms.
Why, then, are we considering a document like the Belhar which is entirely dependent upon the circumstances it was written to adress? Especially when there are so many documented examples of the vague assertations contained in the Belhar leading to completely un-Biblical conclusions when it is removed from that original context!
None of the issues you raised - apartheid, Jim Crow laws, injustices committed both by and against native populations - can be considered contemporary in 2012. The most recent of them came to a spectacular ending nearly 30 years ago.
In reviewing this post and these comments I, for one, rejoice at the fact that the basis for what I believe has absolutely nothing to do with 'our stories'.
Lots of good comments here. I have a question for the group:
Does the proposed Covenant's wording that "Should we come to believe that a teaching in the confessional documents is irreconcilable with God's Word...." carry the same effect as our current Form of Subscription's phrase that our confessions "fully agree with the Word of God"?
Should we consider the proposed Covenant to be a full, quia subscription (I believe our confessions are true because they agree with Scripture) or a quantenus subscription (I believe our confessions are true in so far as they agree with Scripture)?
Posted in: How Do Your Profession of Faith and New Member Classes Work?
I just redid my curriculum this year and have had several people of all different ages go through it these last couple of months. So far it's gone well.
For the first four sessions, I took the questions we ask professing members and broke them down into their various clauses, and used elements from our Confessions and scriptures in response to each question. I go through each session with the applicant and explain & discuss each section.
Session 5 focuses on sacraments, and the final section reviews the commitments a person is making to our particular congregation when becoming a member.
I've attached the six session packet: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1lpAu8A1T0ywaH_DgNH99tRAPYbRyqjSJ/view?usp=drive_link
Posted in: How Do Your Profession of Faith and New Member Classes Work?
No, I don't really prep them to help organize their own story. Our big emphasis any time we get to sit down with people - not just these prospective members - is to practice conveying what Christianity is all about in a minute or less, as if they were describing it to their friends at lunch. Not only is this a good indicator of how well people know the gospel themselves, but it also preps us to fulfill our mandate to share it. It's fun to hear how many different ways the same truths can be communicated!
I'll often ask a couple of the elders to give their own rendition of the 1 minute gospel after the people being interviewed go. I usually make it a bit tougher on them by putting them in a hypothetical situation, like sharing with a super skeptical person or someone outcast from society. It's good for everyone involved to see that even the elders trip over their words a bit addressing difficult situations!
Posted in: Our Confessional Crisis
"But the only official confession... we really need anymore, as far as I can tell, is the one scripture suggests in Romans 10:9: Jesus is Lord."
The problem with this line of thinking is that even our LDS neighbors are quick to say the same exact thing. Except they define the words "Jesus" and "Lord" quite differently than the historic Christianity does. There's a reason the apostle didn't start of the book of Romans with this confession- first he defined the terms. And as excellent as the book of Romans is, it still depends on a bunch of presuppositions taught elsewhere in scripture.
This is the value of having confessions- so that we can all agree together on what scripture 'says' regarding core doctrines of the faith. It would not be difficult to demonstrate the chaos that ensues within the Christian church when this common understanding is lost.
I've been teaching the Confessions to 8th graders for most of 20 years, and there's a lot more than LD1 that sticks with them.
Also, the fact that you would conclude that Confessions "only real function is coercive" indicates you really need to spend some time re-reading (or perhaps reading?) them. I'm not trying to be snarky here, but it's beginning to really bother me that some of the most vocal opponents to confessionalism seem to be so ignorant of what they are criticizing.
You are right about one thing- "The confessions will never live again in the CRC." What a shame.
Posted in: Our Confessional Crisis
Excellent post, although we could have a good discussion over a cold beer regarding your third proposal.
"This requires that we figure out how to wed this reality with our inherited confessional system and make these new practices intelligible to those who have no experience in our inherited confessional system."
This is the biggest challenge we have, both in our Reformed churches and Christian schools. As elders and ministers in the CRC we need to look back at our Dutch (and other) ancesestors who gave us such a rich heritage and not ask "What did they do?", but instead ask "What would they do now?"
Posted in: Time Tracking & Overtime for Salaried Employees
Thank you so much for your help.
That document had exactly the information we needed.
CW
Posted in: Where We Are 25 Years After Ordaining Women as Pastors
The author asks the question "how far have we come in women’s ordination?" As we approach another watershed moment in the CRC pertaining to whether or not the Church will fulfill her obligation in regards disciplining officebearers who are living unrepentantly sinful lifestyles, perhaps the better question to ask is "how far have we gone since women's ordination?"
For those of us who continue to lament this decision 25 years later, please understand that our convictions are not driven by our "context" as the author suggests. Nor is it driven by misogyny, a quest to maintain patriarchy or any other egregious motivations as is often assumed.
Rather, our conviction is driven by a deep desire to remain faithful to scripture as interpreted by solid exegesis and a commitment to orthodox hermeneutical methods that have stood the test of time for nearly 2,000 years - that is until the doctrines borne out of this commitment came into conflict with the 'enlightened' ideas of the late 20th century.
I really do not desire to enter into an online feud with anybody or rain on your parade, I just tire of seeing people who still value orthodox hermeneutics continually being portrayed as a "wall" that needs to be broken through.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
I'm not sure I understand the point of this challenge. Do all of the words in the confessions need a synod approved definition before I can understand their prima facie meaning (not to mention what the author expressly meant to be understood by the word)? As an exegete, I work hard to determine to understand the words as the authors used them, not necessarily as they are defined by deliberative bodies.
I'm not trying to be snarky here... knowing this will help me in this discussion. What other confessional words has synod defined? Off the top of my head I can think of the efforts to change the meaning of QA 80, but when else have we done this?
Posted in: Church Websites
Sunnyside CRC - Washington State
https://www.SunCRC.org/
Posted in: Has Your Church Restructured Your Governance Model?
In the 90's we had separated our Council into three groups: Shepherding Elders, Administrative Elders & Deacons, and Service Deacons. This resulted in a council of over 25 men, which was way too big of a group. Each component needed to have a liaison to the other groups and to various committees, yet the right hand never knew what the left hand was doing, and morale was suffering.
Last year we reduced our council to simply elders and deacons, and reduced each group to 5 men. They have longer terms which helps facilitate better relationships, especially between the elders and their district families. Because we don't have as many seats to fill, we can find guys who truly have a passion to serve in this way.
We also set up a board of trustees consisting of 4 people. This group handles all of the business functions of the church and is appointed by and reports to the Council. We are a complementarian church, so this group also gives the opportunity for women to serve in leadership. Having this group allows the elders and deacons to just concentrate on their core responsibilities of shepherding the congregation and serving them diaconally.
These changes have made a tremendous improvement in our operation, and in the morale and effectiveness of our leadership teams.
Here's a link to our flow chart:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1jzmtBWB68vYfSavjB_-nIbDn0mpffkws/view?usp=sharing
Posted in: A Call To Reformed Evangelism
Excellent article. Thank you!
Posted in: The Belhar Confession: An Invitation
John,
Having taught our Confessions to students for nearly two decades, I would love the opportunity to sit down over a cup of coffee with you and explain why your anlysis of the passages you mentioned from the HC and BC is patently incorrect, however, this particular forum is neither the time or place for that discussion.
Your main argument seems to be that our Confessions were "in fact written in response to a specific set of circumstances." This is of course true, yet it misses Doug's point that though they were written within certain contexts, the topics the Confessions address are not, for the most part, contextually bound. I qualify that statement because all three do make passing references to contemporary issues of their day, and although I agree with their conclusions (both then and now), I would also concede that these references are the weakest elements of the 3 Forms.
Why, then, are we considering a document like the Belhar which is entirely dependent upon the circumstances it was written to adress? Especially when there are so many documented examples of the vague assertations contained in the Belhar leading to completely un-Biblical conclusions when it is removed from that original context!
None of the issues you raised - apartheid, Jim Crow laws, injustices committed both by and against native populations - can be considered contemporary in 2012. The most recent of them came to a spectacular ending nearly 30 years ago.
In reviewing this post and these comments I, for one, rejoice at the fact that the basis for what I believe has absolutely nothing to do with 'our stories'.
Posted in: Form of Subscription Revision Committee II Report (2012)
Lots of good comments here. I have a question for the group:
Does the proposed Covenant's wording that "Should we come to believe that a teaching in the confessional documents is irreconcilable with God's Word...." carry the same effect as our current Form of Subscription's phrase that our confessions "fully agree with the Word of God"?
Should we consider the proposed Covenant to be a full, quia subscription (I believe our confessions are true because they agree with Scripture) or a quantenus subscription (I believe our confessions are true in so far as they agree with Scripture)?