Very well said. This message needs to be reiterated as much as possible.
The Confession reminds us the church has only 3 tasks: preach / administer sacraments / practice discipline. If the church does this properly, Christians will live lives of gratitude working in all of these different spheres.
Steve, you just absolutely hit the nail on the head. Well stated.
Kuhn's term was 'disciplinary matrix'. The terms worldview and paradigm are synonyms.
Although he was a secular philosopher, Kuhn's work ought to be required for every seminary student along with Van Til. It's absolutely brilliant and shows just how SUBjective the scientific community actually is. Vern Poythress has picked up the torch from Van Til on many of these issues.
It seems that in so many ways, the CRC has it's 'glasses' on backwards. Too many interpret scripture through the lenses of general revelation rather than the other way around.
This is good advice. It's true that Kuyper's spheres are not independent circles. They do overlap one another, however they do so in a very minimal way. Where the spheres do overlap the Church should be ready to stand against (or support) the Government, the Academy and other institutions. Your 'hippocratic' approach should be especially heeded when the Institutional Church wades into issues in which good Christians can reach opposing, mutually exclusive conclusions (i.e. social justice & environmental policies).
The Apostle Paul needed neither a Synodical Study Committee nor a "robust theology of embodiment and sexuality" (???) to identify certain lifestyles as sinful and neither should we.
People who struggle with these temptations need what all of us sinners need- to die away to our old selves and come to new life in Christ.
Your list seems comprehensive enough, with the understanding that most churches employ a synthetic blend of these styles; a church could say they are mostly # 2 with just a dash of 6 & 7. This list brings up an interesting topic that needs to be pursued. Certainly all of these categories have strengths and weaknesses, and the subjective nature of the conversation makes rating each style as to it's Biblical adherrance and gospel effectiveness a futile endeavor. What's missing from the overall conversation is how each of these various taxonomies, each with their abilities to speak to the infinite number of socio/cultural situations, can be made compatible with the largely forgotten (and/or ignored) historic Reformed teachings on worship: the Regulative Principle and the Dialogical concept of worship.
Good comment, John. In addition, I see people who go in the opposite direction of what you mention- they chalk everything spiritual or theological as being totally mysterious and unanswerable so that they either they never attempt to resolve these deep questions or they settle for whichever 'mere' answer gives them a warm, fuzzy feeling.
To be sure, there are solid answers to deep theological questions simply because God has revealed so much to us. Some answers come easily, and some never at all - God preserves mystery! - but most answers are attainable through a combination of deep thinking, prayer and study. As has already been mentioned, technology both fosters and inhibits these skills.
I'm also intrigued by the comment about younger generation’s ability to hold two positions simultaneously. This ought to be welcome news for those of us in Confessionaly Reformed camps! We describe God as being both totally transcendent yet totally imminent; We ourselves are at the same time saints and sinners; We state God has fore-ordained everything that occurs, yet hold individuals responsible for their actions; on and on I could go. Good theology always is fraught with inherent tensions and we need to fight our impulse to try and resolve these tensions. I love John's language about grasping the horns of dilemma with Christ... when we preserve theological tension we are held in that 'lingual space'. (Again, solid answers do exist to these deep questions... I don't think you're saying answers aren't possible, just that we should push past 'mere' answers and dig deeper, right John?)
Sadly, there's too much elbow room in this lingual space as most of our fellow church members want nothing to do with the place.
Our Confessions ought to determine the essential tenents of our faith. It's puzzling that ministers and elders in the church can signify their agreement that the Three Forms of Unity "fully agree" with the Word of God in their summaries of scripture's teaching on fundamental issues of the faith, yet still come to such contradictory conclusions on core issues such as baptism or Sabbath rest.
As a denomination, we've agreed that we have clear, concise answers to nearly every hypothetical question listed in this post. These answers are listed in a logical, orderly fashion complete with scriptural references so that the context and rationale for each answer is plain to the reader.
Officers in our churches who don't like these answers have an obligation: convince the rest of us that we're wrong by using the prescribed means, or refrain from teaching their differing views. Why is there such a desire to create disunity in the body by continuing to debate issues that are so clearly settled?
1) You're equivocating somewhat in your usage of 'authoritative' & 'essential'. All doctrines taught in scripture are absolutely authoritative, but not all are essential. At first that sounds heretically harsh, but consider this case in point: the last half of Daniel. Those doctrines are certainly authoritative, but few of us would say a correct interpretation and understanding of them are essential to the Christian life. You're not going to find a Confessional Church who demands strict subscription to a particular interpretation of Daniel. We've ecclesiastically determined that it's not essential.
I would argue that the Confessions are both authoritative and essential, subject to the following qualifications: Their authority is not absolute, as in the case of scripture, but is subject to the Church's interpretation of scripture, and we are obligated to respect this conferred authority. Their doctrines are essential in that great wisdom and restraint was exercised as to which particular doctrines of scripture were summarized within these documents, and by extension which are excluded. The former, essential; the latter, not so much.
Certainly there's a hierarchy within the essential doctrines included in the Confessions; I would rank Head 5 of the CoD as being more essential than BC Article 36, but that doesn't mean that a proper understanding of the Civil Gov't is not essential to my Christian Worldview. I would rather use the term 'priority' rather than 'more or less essential'. When I teach the BC to junior high kids, I typically skip Articles 4 & 6 simply because I don't have the time. They are essential doctrines, but less of a priority.
2) You're second question is a much tougher nut to crack! I would start by substituting 'Eccumenical Creeds' for 'Confessions' in my answer above as to what is essential to maintain fellowship between denominations. That's pretty straightforward- if we can't agree on the most basic of Christian doctrines, it's hopeless.
Here's where my footing gets a bit looser. As Confessional Christians, we've agreed that Christianity has some outward signs: QA 87 and BC 29, for example. Therefore, I would argue that Churches who blatantly & unrepentantly disregard these signs by default can not assent to the basic truths of the ecumenical creeds. Subsequently those denominations should be outside of our fellowship.
Thanks again for the excellent and thought provoking discussion.
It's difficult to answer all of your questions in a short reply (or even a long dissertation), but the summary I would offer is that the goal (telos) of a ecumenical relationship would determine the definition of 'essential'. A group of churches banding together to help bring relief to their community after a tornado or other disaster would easily push deep theological differences aside, but when we chooses alliances to form a local Christian School we would certainly want to tighten the scope of essentials.
As a businessman, I find it ironic that Confessional churches like ours are rushing so quickly to follow the the 'big tent' pattern set by the more mainstream denominations. First of all, it hasn't worked well, as their rapidly declining numbers show. Why emulate that? More importantly, when I sell my products I emphasize my distinctives; my widget is better because A, B & C are different than my competitors. I build truck equipment, so I want ALL trucks to have certain safety components, and to that end I don't care whose brand they have or where they bought it. I think the products I offer have more benefits, but I'd rather a customer buy from brand X than not at all. But as brand X and I compete, we both improve.
In the same way, I want ALL people to be Christians and to be affiliated with a church. I sincerely believe that the CRC has dozens of distinctives (dare I say essential distinctives) that make us a better choice than the Baptist, Lutheran, or even RCA church down the street. I still rejoice when someone joins the Baptist church, but my baptist neighbor and I will be better churchmen when we know exactly what we believe and why one particular theological distinctive is better than the other. Iron sharpens iron. Competition is not a bad thing; Paul uses the analogy often.
Sadly, the trend is to bury these distinctives for the sake of ecumenical relations and/or expediency. In doing this we hurt not just the CRC, but also the denominations we 'compete' against.
I'm not trying to be snarky here, but the responses to 1, 2 & 3 are lessons we all should have learned on the playground as first graders, but alas in this fallen world we all do poorly at interpersonal relations, especially the more personal it becomes. Church is extremely personal. Add Dutch stubbornness into the mix... quick joke: A Dutchman was rescued off an island he was marooned on for decades. The rescuers asked him what the three buildings he erected were for. The first, he said, was his house. “The second is my church. Even though I'm all alone, it's important to spend the Lord's Day in His house.” The Dutchman was silent on the third building. After be prodded, he muttered, “the third building is my old church, but they got too liberal & I had to leave.”
As to your hypothetical credo-baptist member, if after significant and sincere counsel, discussions and brotherly debate agreement remains elusive, what is wrong with lovingly referring them to the Baptist church down the street (assuming he wanted to lead/teach... as you inferred, CRC members are not bound to subscription)? Sure egos are bruised, feelings probably hurt, etc., but would the Kingdom lose? Will not this member, now even more certain of his belief, be a huge asset to that congregation?
On the other hand, what would acquiescing do to the value of either of our beliefs? What would (does?) it teach our kids? How would the simmering and unresolved conflict of such a weighty issue affect decades worth of congregational health? Sorry for answering your questions with questions!
Maybe I'm overly idealistic here, but I think the more we openly discuss distinctives, the more we de-personalize theology (in a good way), and the easier these conversations will become. After all, we don't personalize other scientific convictions like 2+2=4 or that what goes up must come down, so why are we so personally offended when our understanding of a complex theological formulation is challenged? The way we feel about addition doesn't affect the outcome, yet we way too often allow feelings to dictate theological conclusion even when the conclusion is totally at odds with the evidence. One would be held criminally liable for not preventing a person who didn't understand gravity from jumping off a cliff, yet we bend over backwards to not offend brother Christians in our own and other denominations who seek to dive off of theological cliffs.
I'm afraid that decades of designating nearly every aspect of Christian belief as 'non-essential' has left huge numbers of Christians and entire churches teetering on theological cliffs.
Somebody help me out here. I've read everything I could find regarding the CRC & the FoS, and I have yet to find any specific examples of how the FoS 'contains statements that are subject to misinterpretation' or has language which is difficult to understand. Every document ever written contains statements subject to misinterpretation, and the language in the FoS is so straightforward and simple that a middle school student could easily comprehend it.
Passing on these vague, meaningless, subjective claims is disingenuous and it needs to stop.
The fact of the matter is people are upset with the FoS because of its effectiveness, not its 400 year old structure. Even the Committee's report admits that vocabulary and phraseology are not the issue here- the concept of confessional subscription is the issue. We live in a culture that abhors absolute claims, and the FoS demands the signer acknowledge our confessions 'fully [absolutely] agree with the Word of God.' Unfortunately, this worldly culture has crept into the CRC in a big way, and the fact that so many of our officers do not want to be bound by a shared commitment to doctrinal truth should make anyone who cares about the future of our denomination sick.
This new document acknowledges the authority of God's Word. Great. But if we can't commit that our interpretations (our confessions) of what God's Word says regarding specific foundational topics fully agree with God's Word, then why should we be formed and governed by these documents? Without the words 'fully agree with the Word of God' the entire document is meaningless, no matter how well it's word smithed. I'm sad to say that I think this is exactly what the Committee intended: a document that 'sings' but is totally meaningless.
If this proposal passes the CRCNA will no longer be a confessional church. This is the most important and potentially dangerous proposal to come to Synod in decades (and that's really saying something). It must be soundly defeated.
In one sense you are absolutely right, and in another you are dangerously wrong.
We all ought to adopt the motto Semper Reformanda (always reforming) in that we, as you say, "are to continuously seek more understanding that is built on the former reformers. We never arrive till we die." We must always strive to articulate doctrines more clearly and apply them to a world that desparately needs to hear them.
However, many confuse reforming with evolving. The church keeps morphing and changing, drifting wherever the cultural winds blow it until it becomes something that the Reformers would not even recognize. Since are minds are naturally idol factories, this is a very dangerous path.
Although the phrase Semper Reformanda is somewhat familiar, not as many people are familiar with the full phrase: Ecclesia Reformata, Semper Reformanda: The Church Reformed, Always Reforming. Our task is not to continually redefine the church, but to keep the church true to its Biblical definition which was rediscovered in the Reformation and articulated in our Confessions.
Our Confessions give us the anchor we need to maintain this truth. The Church exists in tension- the world constantly pulling it away, and its officers (synod, classis, elders) always pulling it back to its basis: what we confess to be Biblical in our Three Forms of Unity.
Cutting our anchors loose, as this new 'covenant' does is like cutting the string on a kite. Sure, it relieves the tension, but what happens to the kite?
Posted in: Whatever Happened to Sphere Sovereignty?
Very well said. This message needs to be reiterated as much as possible.
The Confession reminds us the church has only 3 tasks: preach / administer sacraments / practice discipline. If the church does this properly, Christians will live lives of gratitude working in all of these different spheres.
Posted in: Genesis - Again!
Steve, you just absolutely hit the nail on the head. Well stated.
Kuhn's term was 'disciplinary matrix'. The terms worldview and paradigm are synonyms.
Although he was a secular philosopher, Kuhn's work ought to be required for every seminary student along with Van Til. It's absolutely brilliant and shows just how SUBjective the scientific community actually is. Vern Poythress has picked up the torch from Van Til on many of these issues.
It seems that in so many ways, the CRC has it's 'glasses' on backwards. Too many interpret scripture through the lenses of general revelation rather than the other way around.
Posted in: The Church and the Exercise of Non-Ecclesiastical Power
This is good advice. It's true that Kuyper's spheres are not independent circles. They do overlap one another, however they do so in a very minimal way. Where the spheres do overlap the Church should be ready to stand against (or support) the Government, the Academy and other institutions. Your 'hippocratic' approach should be especially heeded when the Institutional Church wades into issues in which good Christians can reach opposing, mutually exclusive conclusions (i.e. social justice & environmental policies).
Posted in: Are We Fully Equipped?
The Apostle Paul needed neither a Synodical Study Committee nor a "robust theology of embodiment and sexuality" (???) to identify certain lifestyles as sinful and neither should we.
People who struggle with these temptations need what all of us sinners need- to die away to our old selves and come to new life in Christ.
Posted in: Let’s Talk About Worship Taxonomy
Your list seems comprehensive enough, with the understanding that most churches employ a synthetic blend of these styles; a church could say they are mostly # 2 with just a dash of 6 & 7. This list brings up an interesting topic that needs to be pursued. Certainly all of these categories have strengths and weaknesses, and the subjective nature of the conversation makes rating each style as to it's Biblical adherrance and gospel effectiveness a futile endeavor. What's missing from the overall conversation is how each of these various taxonomies, each with their abilities to speak to the infinite number of socio/cultural situations, can be made compatible with the largely forgotten (and/or ignored) historic Reformed teachings on worship: the Regulative Principle and the Dialogical concept of worship.
Posted in: R.I.P. Deep Thinking
Good comment, John. In addition, I see people who go in the opposite direction of what you mention- they chalk everything spiritual or theological as being totally mysterious and unanswerable so that they either they never attempt to resolve these deep questions or they settle for whichever 'mere' answer gives them a warm, fuzzy feeling.
To be sure, there are solid answers to deep theological questions simply because God has revealed so much to us. Some answers come easily, and some never at all - God preserves mystery! - but most answers are attainable through a combination of deep thinking, prayer and study. As has already been mentioned, technology both fosters and inhibits these skills.
I'm also intrigued by the comment about younger generation’s ability to hold two positions simultaneously. This ought to be welcome news for those of us in Confessionaly Reformed camps! We describe God as being both totally transcendent yet totally imminent; We ourselves are at the same time saints and sinners; We state God has fore-ordained everything that occurs, yet hold individuals responsible for their actions; on and on I could go. Good theology always is fraught with inherent tensions and we need to fight our impulse to try and resolve these tensions. I love John's language about grasping the horns of dilemma with Christ... when we preserve theological tension we are held in that 'lingual space'. (Again, solid answers do exist to these deep questions... I don't think you're saying answers aren't possible, just that we should push past 'mere' answers and dig deeper, right John?)
Sadly, there's too much elbow room in this lingual space as most of our fellow church members want nothing to do with the place.
Posted in: An Open and Shut Case
Our Confessions ought to determine the essential tenents of our faith. It's puzzling that ministers and elders in the church can signify their agreement that the Three Forms of Unity "fully agree" with the Word of God in their summaries of scripture's teaching on fundamental issues of the faith, yet still come to such contradictory conclusions on core issues such as baptism or Sabbath rest.
As a denomination, we've agreed that we have clear, concise answers to nearly every hypothetical question listed in this post. These answers are listed in a logical, orderly fashion complete with scriptural references so that the context and rationale for each answer is plain to the reader.
Officers in our churches who don't like these answers have an obligation: convince the rest of us that we're wrong by using the prescribed means, or refrain from teaching their differing views. Why is there such a desire to create disunity in the body by continuing to debate issues that are so clearly settled?
Posted in: An Open and Shut Case
Thanks for the good questions.
1) You're equivocating somewhat in your usage of 'authoritative' & 'essential'. All doctrines taught in scripture are absolutely authoritative, but not all are essential. At first that sounds heretically harsh, but consider this case in point: the last half of Daniel. Those doctrines are certainly authoritative, but few of us would say a correct interpretation and understanding of them are essential to the Christian life. You're not going to find a Confessional Church who demands strict subscription to a particular interpretation of Daniel. We've ecclesiastically determined that it's not essential.
I would argue that the Confessions are both authoritative and essential, subject to the following qualifications: Their authority is not absolute, as in the case of scripture, but is subject to the Church's interpretation of scripture, and we are obligated to respect this conferred authority. Their doctrines are essential in that great wisdom and restraint was exercised as to which particular doctrines of scripture were summarized within these documents, and by extension which are excluded. The former, essential; the latter, not so much.
Certainly there's a hierarchy within the essential doctrines included in the Confessions; I would rank Head 5 of the CoD as being more essential than BC Article 36, but that doesn't mean that a proper understanding of the Civil Gov't is not essential to my Christian Worldview. I would rather use the term 'priority' rather than 'more or less essential'. When I teach the BC to junior high kids, I typically skip Articles 4 & 6 simply because I don't have the time. They are essential doctrines, but less of a priority.
2) You're second question is a much tougher nut to crack! I would start by substituting 'Eccumenical Creeds' for 'Confessions' in my answer above as to what is essential to maintain fellowship between denominations. That's pretty straightforward- if we can't agree on the most basic of Christian doctrines, it's hopeless.
Here's where my footing gets a bit looser. As Confessional Christians, we've agreed that Christianity has some outward signs: QA 87 and BC 29, for example. Therefore, I would argue that Churches who blatantly & unrepentantly disregard these signs by default can not assent to the basic truths of the ecumenical creeds. Subsequently those denominations should be outside of our fellowship.
Thanks again for the excellent and thought provoking discussion.
Posted in: An Open and Shut Case
It's difficult to answer all of your questions in a short reply (or even a long dissertation), but the summary I would offer is that the goal (telos) of a ecumenical relationship would determine the definition of 'essential'. A group of churches banding together to help bring relief to their community after a tornado or other disaster would easily push deep theological differences aside, but when we chooses alliances to form a local Christian School we would certainly want to tighten the scope of essentials.
As a businessman, I find it ironic that Confessional churches like ours are rushing so quickly to follow the the 'big tent' pattern set by the more mainstream denominations. First of all, it hasn't worked well, as their rapidly declining numbers show. Why emulate that? More importantly, when I sell my products I emphasize my distinctives; my widget is better because A, B & C are different than my competitors. I build truck equipment, so I want ALL trucks to have certain safety components, and to that end I don't care whose brand they have or where they bought it. I think the products I offer have more benefits, but I'd rather a customer buy from brand X than not at all. But as brand X and I compete, we both improve.
In the same way, I want ALL people to be Christians and to be affiliated with a church. I sincerely believe that the CRC has dozens of distinctives (dare I say essential distinctives) that make us a better choice than the Baptist, Lutheran, or even RCA church down the street. I still rejoice when someone joins the Baptist church, but my baptist neighbor and I will be better churchmen when we know exactly what we believe and why one particular theological distinctive is better than the other. Iron sharpens iron. Competition is not a bad thing; Paul uses the analogy often.
Sadly, the trend is to bury these distinctives for the sake of ecumenical relations and/or expediency. In doing this we hurt not just the CRC, but also the denominations we 'compete' against.
Posted in: An Open and Shut Case
I'm not trying to be snarky here, but the responses to 1, 2 & 3 are lessons we all should have learned on the playground as first graders, but alas in this fallen world we all do poorly at interpersonal relations, especially the more personal it becomes. Church is extremely personal. Add Dutch stubbornness into the mix... quick joke: A Dutchman was rescued off an island he was marooned on for decades. The rescuers asked him what the three buildings he erected were for. The first, he said, was his house. “The second is my church. Even though I'm all alone, it's important to spend the Lord's Day in His house.” The Dutchman was silent on the third building. After be prodded, he muttered, “the third building is my old church, but they got too liberal & I had to leave.”
As to your hypothetical credo-baptist member, if after significant and sincere counsel, discussions and brotherly debate agreement remains elusive, what is wrong with lovingly referring them to the Baptist church down the street (assuming he wanted to lead/teach... as you inferred, CRC members are not bound to subscription)? Sure egos are bruised, feelings probably hurt, etc., but would the Kingdom lose? Will not this member, now even more certain of his belief, be a huge asset to that congregation?
On the other hand, what would acquiescing do to the value of either of our beliefs? What would (does?) it teach our kids? How would the simmering and unresolved conflict of such a weighty issue affect decades worth of congregational health? Sorry for answering your questions with questions!
Maybe I'm overly idealistic here, but I think the more we openly discuss distinctives, the more we de-personalize theology (in a good way), and the easier these conversations will become. After all, we don't personalize other scientific convictions like 2+2=4 or that what goes up must come down, so why are we so personally offended when our understanding of a complex theological formulation is challenged? The way we feel about addition doesn't affect the outcome, yet we way too often allow feelings to dictate theological conclusion even when the conclusion is totally at odds with the evidence. One would be held criminally liable for not preventing a person who didn't understand gravity from jumping off a cliff, yet we bend over backwards to not offend brother Christians in our own and other denominations who seek to dive off of theological cliffs.
I'm afraid that decades of designating nearly every aspect of Christian belief as 'non-essential' has left huge numbers of Christians and entire churches teetering on theological cliffs.
Posted in: Form of Subscription: A Covenant for Officebearers
Somebody help me out here. I've read everything I could find regarding the CRC & the FoS, and I have yet to find any specific examples of how the FoS 'contains statements that are subject to misinterpretation' or has language which is difficult to understand. Every document ever written contains statements subject to misinterpretation, and the language in the FoS is so straightforward and simple that a middle school student could easily comprehend it.
Passing on these vague, meaningless, subjective claims is disingenuous and it needs to stop.
The fact of the matter is people are upset with the FoS because of its effectiveness, not its 400 year old structure. Even the Committee's report admits that vocabulary and phraseology are not the issue here- the concept of confessional subscription is the issue. We live in a culture that abhors absolute claims, and the FoS demands the signer acknowledge our confessions 'fully [absolutely] agree with the Word of God.' Unfortunately, this worldly culture has crept into the CRC in a big way, and the fact that so many of our officers do not want to be bound by a shared commitment to doctrinal truth should make anyone who cares about the future of our denomination sick.
This new document acknowledges the authority of God's Word. Great. But if we can't commit that our interpretations (our confessions) of what God's Word says regarding specific foundational topics fully agree with God's Word, then why should we be formed and governed by these documents? Without the words 'fully agree with the Word of God' the entire document is meaningless, no matter how well it's word smithed. I'm sad to say that I think this is exactly what the Committee intended: a document that 'sings' but is totally meaningless.
If this proposal passes the CRCNA will no longer be a confessional church. This is the most important and potentially dangerous proposal to come to Synod in decades (and that's really saying something). It must be soundly defeated.
Posted in: Form of Subscription: A Covenant for Officebearers
Ken,
In one sense you are absolutely right, and in another you are dangerously wrong.
We all ought to adopt the motto Semper Reformanda (always reforming) in that we, as you say, "are to continuously seek more understanding that is built on the former reformers. We never arrive till we die." We must always strive to articulate doctrines more clearly and apply them to a world that desparately needs to hear them.
However, many confuse reforming with evolving. The church keeps morphing and changing, drifting wherever the cultural winds blow it until it becomes something that the Reformers would not even recognize. Since are minds are naturally idol factories, this is a very dangerous path.
Although the phrase Semper Reformanda is somewhat familiar, not as many people are familiar with the full phrase: Ecclesia Reformata, Semper Reformanda: The Church Reformed, Always Reforming. Our task is not to continually redefine the church, but to keep the church true to its Biblical definition which was rediscovered in the Reformation and articulated in our Confessions.
Our Confessions give us the anchor we need to maintain this truth. The Church exists in tension- the world constantly pulling it away, and its officers (synod, classis, elders) always pulling it back to its basis: what we confess to be Biblical in our Three Forms of Unity.
Cutting our anchors loose, as this new 'covenant' does is like cutting the string on a kite. Sure, it relieves the tension, but what happens to the kite?
Semper Ref, Brother.