Certainly a person will want to defend the beliefs they preach, teach and are formed by. However the 'covenant' provides no obligation to defend the truths of scripture summarized in the confessions when they are attacked or misconstrued by others.
I'm sure major heresies would not go unnoticed, but then again, most major heresies begin as minor errors. What will happen when we no longer have any officers committed to "reject all errors that conflict with these doctrines, but also to refute them, and to do everything we can to keep the church free from them"?
I've spent most of the last 20 years teaching confessions to junior high students. I teach the Belgic and Canons primarily, as another teacher goes through the catechism with our kids in high school. Junior high is the perfect age to teach these truths to because these kids are just beginning to form a world view that typically doesn't change for people after age 13. I can identify with Steve's last post totally; we give our professing seniors an 'exit' interview covering many of the same topics Steve mentioned before they leave for college. What a blessing to know they go out into the world (or Dordt College anyways...) knowing that they have a solid world view underneath them. Actually, after hearing them respond, I'd be at peace where ever they went to school (even Calvin!) because I know they will not be shaken in their faith.
Rob- First of all, I've always enjoyed your Banner pieces; that magazine needs more articles like yours. Your first comment is right on the money. Although I grew up CRC, I came of age in the 80's when teaching Confessions had fallen out of fashion, and I didn't discover them until later in life. Thanks to Christian education, I had a Reformed Worldview, but I didn't fully understand its underpinnings; I just had it pounded into my head that we ought to glorify God in all aspects of life. Why? Just because. Upon discovering the back of the Psalter, I struggled with the Cannons at first (in fact, if a student doesn't outright reject them the first time they're taught, they didn't fully understand them), however the more I've studied them and put them to the test, the more I understand the truth they convey as well as the logical consistency between each point of doctrine and how the first four uphold and magnify the fifth- Perseverance of the Saints. Now I fully understand Soli Deo Gloria!
Mark... I feel sorry for you. The truths expressed in the Confessions are timeless. Thank God they do not expire. I do agree with you that many, if not most, officers subscribe out of ignorance. This is the greatest threat facing our denomination. I like your EULA analogy- we all click through all that legalese when eagerly installing a new program or app because we just want to enjoy the benefits of the new program and we don't care about details we probably won't understand anyway. In the same way, people subscribe without thought because it's just a formality required to enjoy the blessings of the church. But your analogy equivocates; the Confessions are not indiscernible legalese, and aside from the truths they contain the Church has no real blessings to share.
Students don't just tolerate this kind of teaching, they crave it. Kids can spot a scam quicker than any other segment of society. It is no wonder that they are fleeing churches who market only the 'blessings' but teach none of the substance or reasons concerning what they believe or why they believe it. Mark, you can't just 'click through' a commitment that so many Christians “offered their backs to the stripes, their tongues to knives, their mouths to gags, and their whole bodies to the fire” rather than deny the truths of our Confession.
I'm so grateful the Advisory Committee took the teeth out of the Form of Subscription and put them into the new Covenant. I only hope it serves to invigorate Confessional teaching and appreciation in our churches.
Greetings, Bev, from the sunny side of the Cascades.
First of all, excellent questions! I wish all of our members would start asking questions like this!
Neither the Form of Subscription nor our new Covenant was ever designed to keep members or officers of the church from asking difficult questions about our Confessions.
I don't think it is arrogant to consider our confessional positions as being more right than other perspectives any more than I would consider someone arrogant for asserting that 4 is the only right answer to 2+2. Many theological claims are subjective, but most are quite absolute. We base our confidence not on our own intellect, but rather on the clarity of scripture regarding a particular doctrine. For example, scripture is quite clear about election, fairly clear about covenant theology (re: infant baptism), and somewhat clear about eschatology (end times), so it would not be arrogant for me to consider ourselves more correct than the Arminians regarding election, but it would be arrogant of me to tell a post-millennialist that he's completely wrong simply because I'm a-millennial.
I love the word you use several times- struggle. IMHO, struggling is the key to learning theology. I could answer the questions you list here straight out, and you might agree with me or you might not. But my advice to you is to keep struggling. Each question you answer will lead to five more questions, and although the questions are difficult, most of them have answers. God does preserve mystery for sure, but He provides far more answers than what He keeps hidden.
Your questions about QA 83 are a perfect example. Why did Ursinus list preaching and discipline, but not love, prayer, obedience, etc? These attributes do have things in common, but what makes them different? How do the scripture references listed in QA 83 compare with references regarding love, prayer, etc? Get Ursinus' commentary on the Heidelberg and read about this in much more detail. Check out the Westminster standards and see how they treat this topic. Finally, read 84 and 85, and then try and develop your own answers to how the kingdom is opened and closed via love or prayer or obedience. In a sense, the theological method is not much different than the scientific method. You have a hypothesis, now test it over and over and see if it's consistent with scripture.
That process is certainly more difficult that just getting the answer given to you, but when you struggle through it you will own the answer- it will have tremendous value to you then. As an added bonus, you will get to see the extraordinary wisdom that God assembled in the writers of our Confessions, and why their teaching is hugely relevant to contemporary issues. To use your words, “that will help bring ownership to what we believe, instead of just getting spoon fed the traditional position, however right that might be.”
I pray God blesses you as you put His Word to the test!
Well, you're right- the debate about cessationalism would be a topic for a whole new thread, but I'll take a stab at what's relevant to the discussion regarding the FoS & COB.
As I understand it, our Confessions are not a comprehensive set of doctrines, but rather a foundational framework by which we interpret and evaluate every doctrine. In regards to this topic, officers are obligated to agree that the Spirit is poured out on us (QA 51) and that the Spirit makes us share in Christ and all His benefits... (QA 53), as well as any other specific confessional teaching on this subject. Since the confessions are largely silent on specific gifts of the Spirit, an officer would be permitted to teach that Glossolalia remains an active gift, but this teaching must be not done in a way that binds the conscience of one who can demonstrate from scripture (or by good and necessary consequence thereof, to borrow from our Presbyterian brothers) that the Spirit no longer works this way. You and I could vehemently disagree about cessationalism yet remain confessionally united as long as we agree that the Spirit is poured out on Christians. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong here.
I've studied the Westminster Standards as well, and having done so I'm so grateful I belong to a 3 Forms church. The Westminster's are fantastic documents, and indeed they are extremely helpful and enlightening, but they are way too specific to honestly subscribe to. Your mention of WCF 1.1 is one of many examples. Scripture does not shed nearly as much light as we would like on this topic, so the Confessions should not be overly binding in this area.
So, let's say your study in this area or any of the other struggles you've mentioned leads you to a conclusion at odds with the confessions- there is a process to bring this to the table through gravamens. It's arduous for sure, but it should be. It's a big deal. We are all seekers of the truth, and if you find an error in our core beliefs, I for one want to know about it. If, however, after being properly evaluated by your council / classis / synod you are found to be wrong, you would need to humbly submit and not go down that road any more. If after this a person still feels strongly about their proposition, they need to break fellowship and go to a group more in line with their theology. This is a terrible prospect, but I would have far more respect for a person who goes through this process than one who 'crosses their fingers' when subscribing.
I totally agree with your question - "Why did we feel when churches sent us ovetures that their office bearers didn't understand or know the confessions that they were signing, why did we feel that "dumbing things down" for them was the answer rather than pursuing the opposite direction and come up with a way to get them educated?"
In fact, the FoS Committee report stated it even more plainly- that they realized the issue was not about the means of subscription, but rather the nature, necessity, and rationale of confessional subscription at all. In other words, the Form of Subscription clearly was not the problem, the problem was all of the officers who either skipped the subscription process altogether, or even worse, signed knowing they had issues, or in most cases signed out in a state of complete ignorance.
You're right, Rob. If we don't address the root problem of theological, confessional and even scriptural illiteracy within our walls, it won't matter what document we give them to sign.
If I were CRC pope for a day I would put nearly every other program and agency on hold and focus all efforts on building strong consistories of elders and deacons throughout this denomination. Isn't that the core mission anyway? Sustaining healthy congregations? Speaking as a CRC elder, we're not getting much - scratch much - ANYTHING - from the denomination to help us address this critical need.
Perhaps the reason the FOS committees have languished for so long is because there just isn't very much support for their proposals which would radically alter the CRC's identity as a confessional church!
Perhaps your committee is frustrated because your working from a false premise: that the Form of Subscription is irreparably broken and must be replaced. This premise is bolstered by further unsubstantiated claims that the language of the FoS is supposedly archaic and difficult, or by the insulting notion that people of certain ethnic groups are unable to understand what they are signing, or that it makes confessional critique completely impossible.
I've read all I can find on this issue including some of the above references, and it seems to me the complaints are not that the FOS doesn't work, rather that it works too well. Prospective office bearers and professors with unorthodox theological proclivities or 'itching ears' can't sign it in good conscience and are therefore prevented from a leadership role. To blame the FOS for the resulting confrontations is like blaming the guard rail for denting a wayward car!
Over the past few years there have been some excellent overtures, articles and discussions showing the value of having a strong subscription. The weaknesses of the proposed Covenant have been very clearly demonstrated. History has shown us over and over what happens to denominations who loosen their confessional subscription.
Please, please heed these warnings. If we can not fully agree as to what Scripture teaches in its core doctrines, there really is no unity and no need for many of us to continue to belong to a denomination that is becoming a stranger to many of us who have known it our entire lives.
Thanks for your post. I have a great admiration of anyone who's dedicated to thinking creatively about teaching doctrine to our children. After teaching now for nearly 20 years I may be a bit biased, but I'd submit that passing down these Biblical truths as summarized in our confessions to new generations is the most important job in the church - and one of the toughest.
These 'thinking out of the box' ideas can have great impact (though I have no idea how I'd express the church's educational goals using blocks), but these sort of pedagogical methods should be used very sparingly lest we forget about what is in the box itself. I say this because I grew up in the CRC in the 80's when catechism and doctrine were totally shoved out the door to make room for one 'outside the box' lesson after another designed to let us express ourselves, develop strong self esteems, stay away from sex and drugs, and learn about Jesus solely in the context of the 'relationship' he had with us. The result with many of my classmates was to express themselves through sex and drugs which led to occasionally using Jesus simply as a therapy for the resulting poor self esteems. I thank God that I discovered our confessions once when paging through the back of the Psalter Hymnal one morning while bored in church and was astounded at what I read.
Over the years I've had classes where I was literally floored by the discussion I had with junior high kids- far deeper and more honest that what I've ever had with adults. I've also had years like what I'm having right now: a group of extremely quiet kids who sit on their hands and stare at the table. I did need to change my tactics this year- more lecture rather than guided discussions, but even though I'm not getting magificant jaw dropping repsonses from this group it doesn't mean they're not learning.
Our confessions help answer the four primary questions of life - Who is God, who am I, how am I saved, and how should I live in response? These are questions that teens are begging to have answered. Sometimes they just don't know it because everything in our culture is designed to distract us from thinking deeply. We - especially our kids - are bombarded by media, busyness and communications that don't exceed 150 characters and always end in haha lol.
I did go through a phase where I made lots of posters and other visual aids, but I soon realized that I can't compete with the world. My efforts were simply lost in the noise and in some cases adding to the distraction. I learned not to be afraid of the quiet. Let them squirm in awkward silence from time to time. I've seen blessing in making a classroom void of worldly distraction- where all is shut off except for God's Word. It's tough for the first month or two of each year because it's so different, but one by one they do come to appreciate it and even look forward to it.
We are in the world view building business when teaching Sunday School. What we teach them now will directly affect them for the rest of their life. Legos, crayons, skits, videos, stories, and other such methods might occasionally help accentuate a point, but they are all double edged swords. We - I - need to learn to just get out of the way of the Gospel.
I have been a junior high catechism teacher for the past 15 years and I'm also a big proponent of a more Calvinistic approach to communion (as opposed to the Zwingellian approach many of our churches take), so I totally support any idea that will encourage our youth to come to the table at an earlier age than what has been typical.
That being said, I have some lingering questions and reservations regarding this proposal:
- Primarily, what exactly is the problem with the current practice of having our youth meet with the elders and then publicly professing their faith before coming to the table?
The only objections I’ve seen to our current practice have been quite feeble, along the lines that it is an intimidating process that might scare kids away. Maybe that’s true, but that’s a very fixable problem. As an elder, the time we’ve spent with our kids when they come before us have by far been the most enjoyable experiences I’ve had on the Council. In addition, I’ve never heard any of our congregation mutter about how put-out they were for having to sit there an extra 5 or 6 minutes while another one of our covenant children stood up and claimed the promises of his baptism. Quite the opposite, in fact.
- How is “age and ability appropriate faith” defined?
Will churches be given a chart that shows an appropriate response for each specific age? Is the five year old’s pat answer of “Jesus” to every question asked now sufficient to meet the requirements given to come to the table?
Scripture does not present a graduated list of instructions for coming to the table- one set of rules for adults and another for youth and yet another for small children. There’s not one way to do it for those who are educated and another way for the dull. Who are we to add this ambiguous clause of ‘age and ability appropriate’ as if it were lifted from the pages of scripture?
The truth of the matter is that we don’t need to make a single change to any of our church order to accommodate younger children at the table. We already have a fantastic method to determine if a child has ‘age and ability appropriate faith’ – meeting with the elders and then standing in front of a church who has and will continue to nurture them and professing their faith. We don’t need committees or reports or ambiguous language or any of this nonsense, we just need to do our job as elders and ministers.
Similar to some of other proposals that will come before Synod 2011, the modus operandi here seems to be that if you just state a fact (that PoF is unnecessary) over and over it becomes true even if no evidence is give to support it.
I eagerly anticipate the day when my children and students can truly enjoy the benefits of coming to the Table. I also eagerly anticipate them being able to enjoy the benefits of marriage, however, I also expect to witness a public commitment before they can enjoy that. Why should our expectations for becoming spiritually united with Christ be any less?
I agree, John. "The underlying problem is that many children are spiritually united with Christ many years before they make profession of faith". If a kid is old / mature enough to realize his need for salvation and can appreciate the implications of being made to be en Cristo, then I want him at the Table... but I want him there only after publicly demonstrating his faith.
We certainly do need to work on ways of making PoF more accessible to younger kids and clearing up some of the misconceptions kids have about what PoF is (that it's only for the super-spiritual kids, or the ones with dramatic conversion experiences, or that it's a rite of passage that they must wait until they're 18 for, etc, etc...).
I would enthusiastically support any measure that would break down whatever barriers (real or perceived) that keep kids from taking this important step. HOWEVER, this proposal doesn't do any of those things; it just makes PoF an optional formality (I don't know if this is the intention of the committee or not, but it is certainly the effect of their proposals).
The ironic thing is that these reports don't seem to discount the need for some sort of examination before inviting a child to the table, it just that the it opens the door for so many different methods and mechanisms for determining what 'age and ability appropriate faith' is (which is in itself totally undefined and subjective). Each church would have a different way of determining this... and as councils and ministers turn over every so many years, even individual churches would have inconsistencies in how they handle these situations. Some churches could just as easily skip the whole examination process altogether, adopt paedo-communion practices and still remain in bounds with the church order. Not good. What's the point of having a denomination if we handle such important things so congregationally?
Whatever barriers that keep mature children from the table are self inflicted, and we do have the responsibility to address these issues. But we already have the tools and ability to fix these problems as well as tremendous leeway in how we structure our examinations and PoF. We don't need to blow a huge hole in one of our most important sections of the church order to effect the changes that need to be made.
Posted in: Form of Subscription: A Covenant for Officebearers
Certainly a person will want to defend the beliefs they preach, teach and are formed by. However the 'covenant' provides no obligation to defend the truths of scripture summarized in the confessions when they are attacked or misconstrued by others.
I'm sure major heresies would not go unnoticed, but then again, most major heresies begin as minor errors. What will happen when we no longer have any officers committed to "reject all errors that conflict with these doctrines, but also to refute them, and to do everything we can to keep the church free from them"?
Posted in: Living Confessionally in Covenant
I've spent most of the last 20 years teaching confessions to junior high students. I teach the Belgic and Canons primarily, as another teacher goes through the catechism with our kids in high school. Junior high is the perfect age to teach these truths to because these kids are just beginning to form a world view that typically doesn't change for people after age 13. I can identify with Steve's last post totally; we give our professing seniors an 'exit' interview covering many of the same topics Steve mentioned before they leave for college. What a blessing to know they go out into the world (or Dordt College anyways...) knowing that they have a solid world view underneath them. Actually, after hearing them respond, I'd be at peace where ever they went to school (even Calvin!) because I know they will not be shaken in their faith.
Rob- First of all, I've always enjoyed your Banner pieces; that magazine needs more articles like yours. Your first comment is right on the money. Although I grew up CRC, I came of age in the 80's when teaching Confessions had fallen out of fashion, and I didn't discover them until later in life. Thanks to Christian education, I had a Reformed Worldview, but I didn't fully understand its underpinnings; I just had it pounded into my head that we ought to glorify God in all aspects of life. Why? Just because. Upon discovering the back of the Psalter, I struggled with the Cannons at first (in fact, if a student doesn't outright reject them the first time they're taught, they didn't fully understand them), however the more I've studied them and put them to the test, the more I understand the truth they convey as well as the logical consistency between each point of doctrine and how the first four uphold and magnify the fifth- Perseverance of the Saints. Now I fully understand Soli Deo Gloria!
Mark... I feel sorry for you. The truths expressed in the Confessions are timeless. Thank God they do not expire. I do agree with you that many, if not most, officers subscribe out of ignorance. This is the greatest threat facing our denomination. I like your EULA analogy- we all click through all that legalese when eagerly installing a new program or app because we just want to enjoy the benefits of the new program and we don't care about details we probably won't understand anyway. In the same way, people subscribe without thought because it's just a formality required to enjoy the blessings of the church. But your analogy equivocates; the Confessions are not indiscernible legalese, and aside from the truths they contain the Church has no real blessings to share.
Students don't just tolerate this kind of teaching, they crave it. Kids can spot a scam quicker than any other segment of society. It is no wonder that they are fleeing churches who market only the 'blessings' but teach none of the substance or reasons concerning what they believe or why they believe it. Mark, you can't just 'click through' a commitment that so many Christians “offered their backs to the stripes, their tongues to knives, their mouths to gags, and their whole bodies to the fire” rather than deny the truths of our Confession.
I'm so grateful the Advisory Committee took the teeth out of the Form of Subscription and put them into the new Covenant. I only hope it serves to invigorate Confessional teaching and appreciation in our churches.
Posted in: Living Confessionally in Covenant
Greetings, Bev, from the sunny side of the Cascades.
First of all, excellent questions! I wish all of our members would start asking questions like this!
Neither the Form of Subscription nor our new Covenant was ever designed to keep members or officers of the church from asking difficult questions about our Confessions.
I don't think it is arrogant to consider our confessional positions as being more right than other perspectives any more than I would consider someone arrogant for asserting that 4 is the only right answer to 2+2. Many theological claims are subjective, but most are quite absolute. We base our confidence not on our own intellect, but rather on the clarity of scripture regarding a particular doctrine. For example, scripture is quite clear about election, fairly clear about covenant theology (re: infant baptism), and somewhat clear about eschatology (end times), so it would not be arrogant for me to consider ourselves more correct than the Arminians regarding election, but it would be arrogant of me to tell a post-millennialist that he's completely wrong simply because I'm a-millennial.
I love the word you use several times- struggle. IMHO, struggling is the key to learning theology. I could answer the questions you list here straight out, and you might agree with me or you might not. But my advice to you is to keep struggling. Each question you answer will lead to five more questions, and although the questions are difficult, most of them have answers. God does preserve mystery for sure, but He provides far more answers than what He keeps hidden.
Your questions about QA 83 are a perfect example. Why did Ursinus list preaching and discipline, but not love, prayer, obedience, etc? These attributes do have things in common, but what makes them different? How do the scripture references listed in QA 83 compare with references regarding love, prayer, etc? Get Ursinus' commentary on the Heidelberg and read about this in much more detail. Check out the Westminster standards and see how they treat this topic. Finally, read 84 and 85, and then try and develop your own answers to how the kingdom is opened and closed via love or prayer or obedience. In a sense, the theological method is not much different than the scientific method. You have a hypothesis, now test it over and over and see if it's consistent with scripture.
That process is certainly more difficult that just getting the answer given to you, but when you struggle through it you will own the answer- it will have tremendous value to you then. As an added bonus, you will get to see the extraordinary wisdom that God assembled in the writers of our Confessions, and why their teaching is hugely relevant to contemporary issues. To use your words, “that will help bring ownership to what we believe, instead of just getting spoon fed the traditional position, however right that might be.”
I pray God blesses you as you put His Word to the test!
Posted in: Living Confessionally in Covenant
Well, you're right- the debate about cessationalism would be a topic for a whole new thread, but I'll take a stab at what's relevant to the discussion regarding the FoS & COB.
As I understand it, our Confessions are not a comprehensive set of doctrines, but rather a foundational framework by which we interpret and evaluate every doctrine. In regards to this topic, officers are obligated to agree that the Spirit is poured out on us (QA 51) and that the Spirit makes us share in Christ and all His benefits... (QA 53), as well as any other specific confessional teaching on this subject. Since the confessions are largely silent on specific gifts of the Spirit, an officer would be permitted to teach that Glossolalia remains an active gift, but this teaching must be not done in a way that binds the conscience of one who can demonstrate from scripture (or by good and necessary consequence thereof, to borrow from our Presbyterian brothers) that the Spirit no longer works this way. You and I could vehemently disagree about cessationalism yet remain confessionally united as long as we agree that the Spirit is poured out on Christians. Somebody please correct me if I'm wrong here.
I've studied the Westminster Standards as well, and having done so I'm so grateful I belong to a 3 Forms church. The Westminster's are fantastic documents, and indeed they are extremely helpful and enlightening, but they are way too specific to honestly subscribe to. Your mention of WCF 1.1 is one of many examples. Scripture does not shed nearly as much light as we would like on this topic, so the Confessions should not be overly binding in this area.
So, let's say your study in this area or any of the other struggles you've mentioned leads you to a conclusion at odds with the confessions- there is a process to bring this to the table through gravamens. It's arduous for sure, but it should be. It's a big deal. We are all seekers of the truth, and if you find an error in our core beliefs, I for one want to know about it. If, however, after being properly evaluated by your council / classis / synod you are found to be wrong, you would need to humbly submit and not go down that road any more. If after this a person still feels strongly about their proposition, they need to break fellowship and go to a group more in line with their theology. This is a terrible prospect, but I would have far more respect for a person who goes through this process than one who 'crosses their fingers' when subscribing.
Posted in: Living Confessionally in Covenant
Rob-
I totally agree with your question - "Why did we feel when churches sent us ovetures that their office bearers didn't understand or know the confessions that they were signing, why did we feel that "dumbing things down" for them was the answer rather than pursuing the opposite direction and come up with a way to get them educated?"
In fact, the FoS Committee report stated it even more plainly- that they realized the issue was not about the means of subscription, but rather the nature, necessity, and rationale of confessional subscription at all. In other words, the Form of Subscription clearly was not the problem, the problem was all of the officers who either skipped the subscription process altogether, or even worse, signed knowing they had issues, or in most cases signed out in a state of complete ignorance.
You're right, Rob. If we don't address the root problem of theological, confessional and even scriptural illiteracy within our walls, it won't matter what document we give them to sign.
If I were CRC pope for a day I would put nearly every other program and agency on hold and focus all efforts on building strong consistories of elders and deacons throughout this denomination. Isn't that the core mission anyway? Sustaining healthy congregations? Speaking as a CRC elder, we're not getting much - scratch much - ANYTHING - from the denomination to help us address this critical need.
Posted in: Form of Subscription or Covenant: An Eternal Debate?
Perhaps the reason the FOS committees have languished for so long is because there just isn't very much support for their proposals which would radically alter the CRC's identity as a confessional church!
Perhaps your committee is frustrated because your working from a false premise: that the Form of Subscription is irreparably broken and must be replaced. This premise is bolstered by further unsubstantiated claims that the language of the FoS is supposedly archaic and difficult, or by the insulting notion that people of certain ethnic groups are unable to understand what they are signing, or that it makes confessional critique completely impossible.
I've read all I can find on this issue including some of the above references, and it seems to me the complaints are not that the FOS doesn't work, rather that it works too well. Prospective office bearers and professors with unorthodox theological proclivities or 'itching ears' can't sign it in good conscience and are therefore prevented from a leadership role. To blame the FOS for the resulting confrontations is like blaming the guard rail for denting a wayward car!
Over the past few years there have been some excellent overtures, articles and discussions showing the value of having a strong subscription. The weaknesses of the proposed Covenant have been very clearly demonstrated. History has shown us over and over what happens to denominations who loosen their confessional subscription.
Please, please heed these warnings. If we can not fully agree as to what Scripture teaches in its core doctrines, there really is no unity and no need for many of us to continue to belong to a denomination that is becoming a stranger to many of us who have known it our entire lives.
Posted in: Legos in Sunday School
Thanks for your post. I have a great admiration of anyone who's dedicated to thinking creatively about teaching doctrine to our children. After teaching now for nearly 20 years I may be a bit biased, but I'd submit that passing down these Biblical truths as summarized in our confessions to new generations is the most important job in the church - and one of the toughest.
These 'thinking out of the box' ideas can have great impact (though I have no idea how I'd express the church's educational goals using blocks), but these sort of pedagogical methods should be used very sparingly lest we forget about what is in the box itself. I say this because I grew up in the CRC in the 80's when catechism and doctrine were totally shoved out the door to make room for one 'outside the box' lesson after another designed to let us express ourselves, develop strong self esteems, stay away from sex and drugs, and learn about Jesus solely in the context of the 'relationship' he had with us. The result with many of my classmates was to express themselves through sex and drugs which led to occasionally using Jesus simply as a therapy for the resulting poor self esteems. I thank God that I discovered our confessions once when paging through the back of the Psalter Hymnal one morning while bored in church and was astounded at what I read.
Over the years I've had classes where I was literally floored by the discussion I had with junior high kids- far deeper and more honest that what I've ever had with adults. I've also had years like what I'm having right now: a group of extremely quiet kids who sit on their hands and stare at the table. I did need to change my tactics this year- more lecture rather than guided discussions, but even though I'm not getting magificant jaw dropping repsonses from this group it doesn't mean they're not learning.
Our confessions help answer the four primary questions of life - Who is God, who am I, how am I saved, and how should I live in response? These are questions that teens are begging to have answered. Sometimes they just don't know it because everything in our culture is designed to distract us from thinking deeply. We - especially our kids - are bombarded by media, busyness and communications that don't exceed 150 characters and always end in haha lol.
I did go through a phase where I made lots of posters and other visual aids, but I soon realized that I can't compete with the world. My efforts were simply lost in the noise and in some cases adding to the distraction. I learned not to be afraid of the quiet. Let them squirm in awkward silence from time to time. I've seen blessing in making a classroom void of worldly distraction- where all is shut off except for God's Word. It's tough for the first month or two of each year because it's so different, but one by one they do come to appreciate it and even look forward to it.
We are in the world view building business when teaching Sunday School. What we teach them now will directly affect them for the rest of their life. Legos, crayons, skits, videos, stories, and other such methods might occasionally help accentuate a point, but they are all double edged swords. We - I - need to learn to just get out of the way of the Gospel.
Posted in: The Wait is Nearly Over
I have been a junior high catechism teacher for the past 15 years and I'm also a big proponent of a more Calvinistic approach to communion (as opposed to the Zwingellian approach many of our churches take), so I totally support any idea that will encourage our youth to come to the table at an earlier age than what has been typical.
That being said, I have some lingering questions and reservations regarding this proposal:
- Primarily, what exactly is the problem with the current practice of having our youth meet with the elders and then publicly professing their faith before coming to the table?
The only objections I’ve seen to our current practice have been quite feeble, along the lines that it is an intimidating process that might scare kids away. Maybe that’s true, but that’s a very fixable problem. As an elder, the time we’ve spent with our kids when they come before us have by far been the most enjoyable experiences I’ve had on the Council. In addition, I’ve never heard any of our congregation mutter about how put-out they were for having to sit there an extra 5 or 6 minutes while another one of our covenant children stood up and claimed the promises of his baptism. Quite the opposite, in fact.
- How is “age and ability appropriate faith” defined?
Will churches be given a chart that shows an appropriate response for each specific age? Is the five year old’s pat answer of “Jesus” to every question asked now sufficient to meet the requirements given to come to the table?
Scripture does not present a graduated list of instructions for coming to the table- one set of rules for adults and another for youth and yet another for small children. There’s not one way to do it for those who are educated and another way for the dull. Who are we to add this ambiguous clause of ‘age and ability appropriate’ as if it were lifted from the pages of scripture?
The truth of the matter is that we don’t need to make a single change to any of our church order to accommodate younger children at the table. We already have a fantastic method to determine if a child has ‘age and ability appropriate faith’ – meeting with the elders and then standing in front of a church who has and will continue to nurture them and professing their faith. We don’t need committees or reports or ambiguous language or any of this nonsense, we just need to do our job as elders and ministers.
Similar to some of other proposals that will come before Synod 2011, the modus operandi here seems to be that if you just state a fact (that PoF is unnecessary) over and over it becomes true even if no evidence is give to support it.
I eagerly anticipate the day when my children and students can truly enjoy the benefits of coming to the Table. I also eagerly anticipate them being able to enjoy the benefits of marriage, however, I also expect to witness a public commitment before they can enjoy that. Why should our expectations for becoming spiritually united with Christ be any less?
Posted in: The Wait is Nearly Over
I agree, John. "The underlying problem is that many children are spiritually united with Christ many years before they make profession of faith". If a kid is old / mature enough to realize his need for salvation and can appreciate the implications of being made to be en Cristo, then I want him at the Table... but I want him there only after publicly demonstrating his faith.
We certainly do need to work on ways of making PoF more accessible to younger kids and clearing up some of the misconceptions kids have about what PoF is (that it's only for the super-spiritual kids, or the ones with dramatic conversion experiences, or that it's a rite of passage that they must wait until they're 18 for, etc, etc...).
I would enthusiastically support any measure that would break down whatever barriers (real or perceived) that keep kids from taking this important step. HOWEVER, this proposal doesn't do any of those things; it just makes PoF an optional formality (I don't know if this is the intention of the committee or not, but it is certainly the effect of their proposals).
The ironic thing is that these reports don't seem to discount the need for some sort of examination before inviting a child to the table, it just that the it opens the door for so many different methods and mechanisms for determining what 'age and ability appropriate faith' is (which is in itself totally undefined and subjective). Each church would have a different way of determining this... and as councils and ministers turn over every so many years, even individual churches would have inconsistencies in how they handle these situations. Some churches could just as easily skip the whole examination process altogether, adopt paedo-communion practices and still remain in bounds with the church order. Not good. What's the point of having a denomination if we handle such important things so congregationally?
Whatever barriers that keep mature children from the table are self inflicted, and we do have the responsibility to address these issues. But we already have the tools and ability to fix these problems as well as tremendous leeway in how we structure our examinations and PoF. We don't need to blow a huge hole in one of our most important sections of the church order to effect the changes that need to be made.