Hey Dan. The Canons of Dort were written as a response to the Arminian perspective on the involvement of God and humans in the process of salvation. And, of course, today the Arminian position is the predominate position among those holding a classical view of Christianity. Arminians of the past and even at present see the Reformed view of predestination as misrepresenting a just or merciful God. It represents God as choosing some undeserving people for salvation while sentencing the rest of humanity to an eternity of damnation. To most Christians, this represents not just a sovereign God but an unjust God, a picture of a less than good God. And of course, salvation and damnation are some of the primary roles of God as it relates to humanity. So do you really think your definition of justice fits with the understanding that Reformed people have of God as he metes out salvation to some but not to others? Such a perspective fits your example of the policeman who gives a pass (and continually gives a pass) to some law breakers and not to others. So obviously, your premise and example on justice seemed confusing especially seeing we are the image bearers of God.
Thanks Suzanne, for your interesting article on the Canons of Dort. You are right, that there is little in the Canons that teach us about human justice. The subject is about God, and not so much about whether he is just, but whether he has a right to choose some for salvation and not others. Even being image bearers of God, according to the Bible, the Canons do not give humans a good example of justice to follow in the example of God.
What surprises me about the Canons is that they say little or nothing about a double predestination but if anything take an infralapsarian view of God’s electing purposes. The Canons take a position that God did not cause the non elect to fall, but that he simply allowed the fall according to his permissive will rather than his decretive will. So although he allowed the fall and its results, he did not cause it.
But that is playing loose and free with the Bible’s teachings. Doesn’t the apostle Paul, in Romans, teach that God credited all of Adam’s posterity with Adam’s original sin, as well as his sinful nature? If everyone comes to life with Adam’s sin already credited to them, isn’t that in effect God determining all of humanity to be sinners before they are born or have acted? If all people come into human existence with a fallen human nature, a natural inclination to sin, doesn’t that insure that all will reach God’s determined destination of eternal damnation? That hardly seems to be an expression of justice, but rather a miscarriage of justice. So if as you say, “Sin infects and affects every human being and everything that human beings do,” then it is God who has caused humans to act in such a sinful way, part of his predestined plan. Double predestination is clearly taught in the Bible. The authors of the Canon, simply could not bring themselves to acknowledge the Bible teaching a God that is both the author of good and evil.
Thanks Shannon for your thoughts on witnessing. You say, “It is difficult for me to understand the mindset that is not compelled by faith to share our faith.” You are speaking as an ordained minister of the church who has spent years in formal education preparing for ministry. What other mindset could fellow Christians expect from you? But for you to say that of others is a bit surprising. And it is also surprising, the response that you receive from non Christian friends and family such as atheists and Muslims. If you are as enthusiastic as you claim for Christ (incessant Jesus talk) it is a wonder that you have friends outside of Christian circles (and maybe even within Christian circles). Put the shoe on the other foot. If your Muslim family incessantly talked about their submission to Allah how long would you want to listen? Or if your strongly committed atheist friends incessantly denied God and spoke often of the foolishness of religion including (especially including) Christianity, how would you feel? I am guessing that you are so excited about your Christian faith that you lack sensitivity to the religious convictions of others. And by your enthusiasm you diminish the value of their faith and beliefs.
You are absolutely right to say that I don’t know you or the relationships that you speak of. It sounds like you may be a great person, as well as your relationships. That we don’t know each other is typical of websites like this that encourage blogging.
As I listened to your previous comment, it sounded like you are very enthusiastic and passionate about your faith relationship. In fact you wondered why others weren’t like you in your enthusiasm. You incessantly talk about Jesus with your atheist friends, and at every opportunity will point to the divinity of Christ with your Muslim family, even though you obviously know that this is a point of contention between Muslims and Christians.
I guess my response was a knee jerk reaction to what I thought might be normal for a non Christian listening to such enthusiasm about Christ. After all, even Scripture points out that the cross is foolishness to the non Christian. In part such foolishness is that non Christians know that Christians think of their Christian faith as exclusive of all other religions. After all, there is no other name than Jesus by which one can be saved. The message of Christ, or the gospel, devalues all other religions. Just read the apostle Paul. Isn’t that the point of the gospel? If you are not trusting my Savior, Jesus, then you’re not going to make it to heaven or have acceptance with God. So we try to dissuade non Christians from trusting whatever they may have been trusting in, to that of trusting in Jesus Christ. So it seems perfectly natural for a non Christian to be offended by an overly enthusiastic gospel spreader. I think Paul warns us that such an offense is normal.
Thanks, Shannon, for the correction to my misunderstand of you, your friends, and family and my knee jerk reaction to your previous response.
Thanks Mark, for an interesting article of your faith journey. As you seem to suggest, your new experience is not so unique, as you had previously thought, but perhaps unique to the CRC experience. You new found experience seems quite typical of others within Christianity such as the Pentecostal’s personal religious experience. Of course the Reformed expression of faith has always been somewhat skeptical of such expressions of faith because it is largely dependent on one’s own subjective experience and has no objective evidence that grounds it in reality. But such an experience as yours seems to be increasingly finding acceptance in the “third wave” movement that is gaining a foothold in our denomination. Of course the appeal of such an experience as yours is that it contains a personal experience of Christ that so many thought was missing from the CRC experience in the past. It also contains a personal experience of the Holy Spirit that many CRCers thought was missing in the experience of our church members. Perhaps, though, they simply did not understand the unique ministry of the Holy Spirit.
Understandably, such a faith experience sets itself apart from a more informed non Christian’s experience, who has a difficult time accepting a religious expression that is solely grounded in subjectivism and feelings rather than objective reality. As you suggest, you are “living out a different expression of Christianity” than what has typified the Reformed expression of the faith. Thanks for giving us a small glance into your new found expression of faith, which you refer to as a refinement of faith.
Sounds like a dilemma to me. Do we evangelize or dialog? Which side do we err on? You mention that this concern is raised in the structured setting of formal conversation rather than informal dialog. But then you ask, is our goal to evangelize our Muslim friends? That sounds less than the formal setting.
If the conversation is formal with a goal of reaching agreement on social justice, community cohesion and peace, why would evangelization (talk of Christ’s saving benefits) even be brought into the conversation? That would incite division immediately. It would be seen as a Christian attempt to push the Christian religion as the religious answer to social justice or community peace. If the Muslim party involved in this dialog attempted to promote their religion as the answer to social injustice, you as a Christian would, no doubt, be insulted, as well. Most people don’t see religion as the answer to social and community needs.
As to personal relationships, I’d say, be careful. The only religion that is attractive to another is one’s own religion (a general principle). Just as the gospel is foolishness to those outside of Christianity, so the gospel of the Islamic religion is foolishness to those outside of Islamic circles. Test for yourself. What gospel outside of Christianity do you find to be attractive? Probably none. And those outside of Christian circles don’t really want to hear about the Christian faith. It is “foolishness” as Paul says. So if any of these responders came close to a good approach to a Muslim, I’d say Bill Harris comes closest. As a Christian, be a friend with no hidden agenda. If there comes a time in which your Muslim neighbor wants to talk religion, let them ask. Otherwise, just be a caring friend. And you and your friend will likely both be richer for the relationship.
Nice article Brianna. It has a nice balance to a concern that many in the Reformed tradition seem to feel. I think that concern has something to do with the legalistic perspective of the Reformed faith. Reformed people have always placed a certain emphasis on law. I’m recalling, in my mind, Calvin’s three uses of the law. The using of the law as a rule of gratitude seems to easily backfire and result in guilt, whether warranted or not.
When Reformed Christians speak of the law as a rule of gratitude for Christian living, it easily disintegrates into a measuring stick for Christian living. And when you don’t measure up, the result is guilt and guilty feelings.
The Pharisees, of course, were driven by law. They would use the law as a measuring stick to guilt their fellow Jews and Jesus into obedience. Jesus didn’t buy into such a mentality. Jesus seemed to dismiss much of the Jewish cherished laws. Instead Jesus’ emphasis was on compassion. Have you ever noticed how often Jesus was characterized as having compassion on and for people, whether on the crowds, individuals, sinners, or even good people? And much of Jesus’ teachings focused on compassion. Have you ever noticed how often the Pharisees were characterized as having compassion? Not once. So as to Jesus’ teaching and example, law and compassion seem to be antithetical to each other.
Paul, at times encouraged joyful giving, akin to having compassion. As Reformed Christians we, instead, follow a measuring stick of grateful giving (legalistic), which gets spelled out as giving a measurable tithe, or an individual quota, a classical quota, and a denominational quota. It all gets broken down into a legalistic amount that Reformed Christians should be giving, whether as churches or as individuals. And when not meeting that measure, the result is guilty feelings and guilt. The law, even as a rule (measuring stick) of gratitude (which the Pharisees would also advocate) becomes a measure of our failure more often than a measure of our success.
Law or legalism most often has a negative effect of bringing about guilt and feelings of doubt. Even the use of the law as a rule of gratitude is not so different than what the Pharisees practiced. I’m quite certain they would have seen law keeping as rule of gratitude for the deliverance they felt from God, too. But they put a heavy emphasis on human responsibility to be law keepers, even as Reformed people have done. And our failure always seems to bring about guilt. That is another emphasis of the Reformed faith, human failure.
Christ wants our lives to be characterized by compassion, whether it is forgiving others or doing good for others, but not as legalistic law keepers. Perhaps the secret to a joyous Christian experience is to get our eyes off the law and instead live compassionate lives of love for God and neighbor.
Thanks Laura, for an interesting concept: a more focused conversation time after the worship service while having coffee. I remember, years ago (probably 40 or so) the ministers (two of them) who carried considerable authority in the church, strongly suggested that the members forgo the frivolous conversations he and his fellow minister were hearing during coffee time after church. Instead the members should focus their conversations on more spiritual and uplifting matters, maybe even including reflections of the sermon. Out, were the conversations about the movie we saw the previous week, the vacation that friends had taken, the new car we were looking to buy, etc. etc. We were new at this church and still considering whether we wanted to join. After a few weeks of focused conversation and feeling uncomfortable with it, we stopped attending that particular church. Such focused conversation may be good for some, but definitely not all.
Thanks, Joshua, for the advice. But to simply ask God for the ancient paths, to which he gives Jesus as the answer, is rather simplistic. Thomas Jefferson might have agreed with your answer and quoted Matthew 11:28-30 as well. He was a strong believer in the teachings of Jesus Christ but had little use for the rest of the Bible. He called himself a Christian deist. I wonder if he qualified for having found the ancient paths?
Then there are Reformed Christians, a good many (maybe, the majority) who have been raised in the Reformed faith all their lives. They assume that the ancient paths is what they have been taught all their lives and would never think to question those cherished and ancient teachings. There are also the Baptists who generally tend to be Arminian when it comes to salvation, but are called apostates or heretics by the early Reformers. There are also Pentecostals who emphasize the personal experience of salvation along with the experience of miraculous gifts. And there are hundreds of other denominations, each having their own emphasis as to the Christian life. Each group seems to have their own way and perspective on interpreting the Bible and understanding the ancient paths.
So to say, when the burden of trying to figure things out on our own becomes too great, simply look to Jesus and we will be given rest for our souls, this sound pretty simplistic. But I guess Thomas Jefferson would say the same, and he was a person deserving of great respect. So who am I to argue? Thanks Joshua.
Thanks, Syd, for your article on uncertainty. I especially like your analogy of right/wrong compass and the better/worse compass, and how we use one or the other when applying direction either to ourselves or to others. How true that is.
I’m not sure what to make of your “waiting in uncertainty” posture. I’m not even sure that the two sojourners had to wait very long in uncertainty, not even a full day. But what does waiting in uncertainty mean? It certainly doesn’t mean waiting around, doing nothing. It doesn’t mean not wrestling with the issue at hand, even as these two disciples wrestled with the idea that their Savior had been crucified and buried. Certainly they shared their ideas, thoughts, and misgivings, as well as their hopes.
As to the homosexual issue facing our denomination, it would seem that some of the uncertainty has been removed, at least for the present and near future. Ministers and office bearers may not participate in a same sex marriages in any way, and by way of being models for their congregations it would be best if members didn’t participate in such weddings either. We don’t believe in double standards, do we? Nor will married same sex couples be allowed to be members of our churches. That much we can be certain of. For many that doesn’t seem to be a reason to rejoice. At present it seems more like waiting with doubt and fear for the church we love (maybe even as the sojourners felt on the way to Emmaus). And I can’t imagine it means to let sleeping dogs lie. Thanks Syd for food for thought.
This is becoming an interesting conversation. I appreciate the insights some are laying out on the table in regard to hermeneutics (or principles of interpreting Scripture). Andrew suggests that we (the church) are abandoning a more conservative view for a more open and permissive view of interpreting the Bible, and thus are even considering enveloping homosexuals into the full life of the church, as full members. It is true, there are two ways to read Scripture, even on the homosexual issue. One, reading Romans 1 literally, would completely exclude the homosexuals from the church and see them as heathens, except, possibly, as objects of evangelism. Or a second reading is that Paul was speaking of a particular and heinous form of homosexual abuse and not of respectable gays or same sex married people that Paul, either knew nothing about or wasn’t addressing.
But the reality is that the church has always used both the more restrictive and the more open hermeneutic as it has seen fit, but generally moving from the more traditional (restrictive) to the more open. I’m speaking of our denomination, and not looking over the fence at other Christian denominations or groups.
One issue where this is obvious is in regard to Sunday observance. In the past (50 years ago or so) Sunday was seen as a Christian Sabbath where CRC Christians were very restricted in what they could do on Sunday (no sports, no work, no restaurants, no newspapers, no bicycle riding for children, no meal preparation, etc.) Today, in CRCs, Sunday is celebrated as the Lord’s Day (not a sabbath) and nearly anything goes. Nothing is nicer than going out to a restaurant for a nice dinner after church, or breakfast before church.
Or what about divorce. I remember when divorce was sanctioned in the CRC only under the condition of marital unfaithfulness, not even spousal abuse was a legitimate grounds. And those divorced were not allow to teach or hold office in the church. That has gone out the door for a more open interpretation of the Bible.
Or what about separation from the world and worldly amusements? I couldn’t dance, go to the show, play cards (other than UNO), etc. etc.
Or what about women in church office, or the so called “headship” principle? I haven’t heard that word in twenty years. We ‘ve pretty much removed the word “obey” from our CRC wedding forms. And there was no doubt that God forbade women from holding places of authority over men inside the church, as well as in society. Now we have a different understanding of the Bible. Women can be elders, deacons and ministers, all based on a more open hermeneutic.
Or what about Christian education? I remember when it was a requirement for church office bearers and Calvin faculty to enroll their children in the Christian school system. It was a covenant principle which was at the heart of our Reformed theology. Now Christian education is a nice CRC elective.
Or what about our narrower view toward the Holy Spirit’s role in the Christian’s life that was held in the past? Now increasingly we are adopting a Pentecostal and experiential perspective by which the Christian’s experience of salvation becomes more important than God’s role. Dancing in the aisles of church is evidence of a Spirit filled life. Now spiritual warfare is a matter of demons influencing people from some pseudo reality. The third wave movement is increasingly making inroads into the church because a more open hermeneutic allows and even encourages it.
Or what about interracial marriage? That was a definite no no for Christians. But, now, a more open interpretation of the Bible says, yes, by all means.
And we could go on to other issues but this will suffice. The point, is that Western Christianity, including (or especially) the CRC has always used both a closed minded traditional approach to interpreting the Bible, as well as a more open and less restrictive approach to hermeneutics. Just as the church has opened its doors to women in leadership (even at Synod) and to have authority over men and women, so also within the next twenty years the church will open its doors to homosexuals and will fully recognize their marriages as God ordained and will be seen as valuable assets to our churches, no different from any other member. And this will happen because we will see and understand that the Bible (our authority) tells us not to show prejudice against anyone, especially within the church. It’s a shame that this can’t happen sooner than later before we lose our reputation as a welcoming voice in our society.
Thanks Richard for your input. On a website like this we sure get a variety of opinions, and it’s good to hear your opinion, as well. But I think your reasoning falls short in a couple of places. One, your comment that has Paul saying slavery is wrong because Paul considers Onesimus as a brother and should be treated graciously rather than as he deserves as a runaway slave doesn’t follow sound reasoning. Paul doesn’t ask Philemon to release Onesimus from his slavery or suggest that slavery is wrong, but only to treat him beyond that which he deserves because he has been so useful to Paul. Paul doesn’t say that all slaves should be treated as brothers, only Onesimus. Nor is Paul condemning the institution of slavery. Paul never criticizes the institution of slavery in the Old Testament as practiced by the Jews, or the practice within his own Roman culture. In fact, Paul likens Christianity to the institution of slavery, only a willing slavery, where the slave lives in willing obedience to his owner and master. If Paul considered slavery as wrong, I doubt that he would use the practice of slavery as a model for the Christian’s life. I think you are pushing way beyond what Paul had in his mind. You are imposing your own convictions on him.
As to your thoughts about the Bible’s message in regard to homosexuality and its clarity, I think you may be on a slippery slope. Although there appears to be a clear condemnation of homosexuality in Romans 1, as well as in other passages (Old Testament), what is not clear at all is if Paul is talking about homosexuality across the board. It’s obvious he is talking about those who suppress and deny God’s divine nature. He is talking about those who refuse to honor and give thanks to him. He is talking about those who worship man-made idols instead of the God of heaven and earth. Even when the Old Testament criticizes homosexuals it is those who demonstrate a perverted practice from within a heathen religious culture. Paul or the Old Testament isn’t condemning homosexuals who claim a commitment to Christ and to the faith of the Bible and who want to be useful to God in his present kingdom. So it seems likely that Paul isn’t criticizing all homosexuals, but only those who pervert human sexuality. Paul could have as easily condemned those who pervert heterosexual sexual relationships. And if he did, such condemnation would not include a normal heterosexual sexual relationship within the bonds of marriage, especially a Christian marriage. So what you, Richard, claim to be clear is not at all clear to many who read the same Bible verses as you read. What is clear, is that Paul is condemning the hatred of God by the heathen, but at the same time promises eternal life to those who persevere in doing good and by such seek honor, glory and eternal life. That’s sounds like any Christian homosexual who loves the Lord and seeks to honor God through a chaste life or through marital commitment in a life long relationship of love.
Such scrutiny of Scripture has nothing to do with the undermining of Scriptural authority but rather a seeking for God’s message of salvation for those who have been chosen by God. If there is uncertainty (not a holy uncertainty) it is the uncertainty planted by those who misrepresent God’s intentions and tend to be exclusionary of those different from themselves.
Thanks Al (Mulder) for your take on uncertainty or looking into a glass darkly... It’s obvious that Bible believing Christians do not hear the Spirit saying the same thing on much of anything, Hence the thousands of different Christian denominations, all claiming the Bible as their authority but yet believing different things on every topic coming out of Scripture. Do we call this a Spirit led church?
Posted in: How Do You Define "Justice"?
Hey Dan. The Canons of Dort were written as a response to the Arminian perspective on the involvement of God and humans in the process of salvation. And, of course, today the Arminian position is the predominate position among those holding a classical view of Christianity. Arminians of the past and even at present see the Reformed view of predestination as misrepresenting a just or merciful God. It represents God as choosing some undeserving people for salvation while sentencing the rest of humanity to an eternity of damnation. To most Christians, this represents not just a sovereign God but an unjust God, a picture of a less than good God. And of course, salvation and damnation are some of the primary roles of God as it relates to humanity. So do you really think your definition of justice fits with the understanding that Reformed people have of God as he metes out salvation to some but not to others? Such a perspective fits your example of the policeman who gives a pass (and continually gives a pass) to some law breakers and not to others. So obviously, your premise and example on justice seemed confusing especially seeing we are the image bearers of God.
Posted in: The Canons of Dort: No Line Between 'Deserving' and 'Undeserving'
Thanks Suzanne, for your interesting article on the Canons of Dort. You are right, that there is little in the Canons that teach us about human justice. The subject is about God, and not so much about whether he is just, but whether he has a right to choose some for salvation and not others. Even being image bearers of God, according to the Bible, the Canons do not give humans a good example of justice to follow in the example of God.
What surprises me about the Canons is that they say little or nothing about a double predestination but if anything take an infralapsarian view of God’s electing purposes. The Canons take a position that God did not cause the non elect to fall, but that he simply allowed the fall according to his permissive will rather than his decretive will. So although he allowed the fall and its results, he did not cause it.
But that is playing loose and free with the Bible’s teachings. Doesn’t the apostle Paul, in Romans, teach that God credited all of Adam’s posterity with Adam’s original sin, as well as his sinful nature? If everyone comes to life with Adam’s sin already credited to them, isn’t that in effect God determining all of humanity to be sinners before they are born or have acted? If all people come into human existence with a fallen human nature, a natural inclination to sin, doesn’t that insure that all will reach God’s determined destination of eternal damnation? That hardly seems to be an expression of justice, but rather a miscarriage of justice. So if as you say, “Sin infects and affects every human being and everything that human beings do,” then it is God who has caused humans to act in such a sinful way, part of his predestined plan. Double predestination is clearly taught in the Bible. The authors of the Canon, simply could not bring themselves to acknowledge the Bible teaching a God that is both the author of good and evil.
Posted in: We Don't Own Jesus
Thanks Shannon for your thoughts on witnessing. You say, “It is difficult for me to understand the mindset that is not compelled by faith to share our faith.” You are speaking as an ordained minister of the church who has spent years in formal education preparing for ministry. What other mindset could fellow Christians expect from you? But for you to say that of others is a bit surprising. And it is also surprising, the response that you receive from non Christian friends and family such as atheists and Muslims. If you are as enthusiastic as you claim for Christ (incessant Jesus talk) it is a wonder that you have friends outside of Christian circles (and maybe even within Christian circles). Put the shoe on the other foot. If your Muslim family incessantly talked about their submission to Allah how long would you want to listen? Or if your strongly committed atheist friends incessantly denied God and spoke often of the foolishness of religion including (especially including) Christianity, how would you feel? I am guessing that you are so excited about your Christian faith that you lack sensitivity to the religious convictions of others. And by your enthusiasm you diminish the value of their faith and beliefs.
Posted in: We Don't Own Jesus
You are absolutely right to say that I don’t know you or the relationships that you speak of. It sounds like you may be a great person, as well as your relationships. That we don’t know each other is typical of websites like this that encourage blogging.
As I listened to your previous comment, it sounded like you are very enthusiastic and passionate about your faith relationship. In fact you wondered why others weren’t like you in your enthusiasm. You incessantly talk about Jesus with your atheist friends, and at every opportunity will point to the divinity of Christ with your Muslim family, even though you obviously know that this is a point of contention between Muslims and Christians.
I guess my response was a knee jerk reaction to what I thought might be normal for a non Christian listening to such enthusiasm about Christ. After all, even Scripture points out that the cross is foolishness to the non Christian. In part such foolishness is that non Christians know that Christians think of their Christian faith as exclusive of all other religions. After all, there is no other name than Jesus by which one can be saved. The message of Christ, or the gospel, devalues all other religions. Just read the apostle Paul. Isn’t that the point of the gospel? If you are not trusting my Savior, Jesus, then you’re not going to make it to heaven or have acceptance with God. So we try to dissuade non Christians from trusting whatever they may have been trusting in, to that of trusting in Jesus Christ. So it seems perfectly natural for a non Christian to be offended by an overly enthusiastic gospel spreader. I think Paul warns us that such an offense is normal.
Thanks, Shannon, for the correction to my misunderstand of you, your friends, and family and my knee jerk reaction to your previous response.
Posted in: Are You 'Losing Your Faith' or is Your Faith Being Refined?
Thanks Mark, for an interesting article of your faith journey. As you seem to suggest, your new experience is not so unique, as you had previously thought, but perhaps unique to the CRC experience. You new found experience seems quite typical of others within Christianity such as the Pentecostal’s personal religious experience. Of course the Reformed expression of faith has always been somewhat skeptical of such expressions of faith because it is largely dependent on one’s own subjective experience and has no objective evidence that grounds it in reality. But such an experience as yours seems to be increasingly finding acceptance in the “third wave” movement that is gaining a foothold in our denomination. Of course the appeal of such an experience as yours is that it contains a personal experience of Christ that so many thought was missing from the CRC experience in the past. It also contains a personal experience of the Holy Spirit that many CRCers thought was missing in the experience of our church members. Perhaps, though, they simply did not understand the unique ministry of the Holy Spirit.
Understandably, such a faith experience sets itself apart from a more informed non Christian’s experience, who has a difficult time accepting a religious expression that is solely grounded in subjectivism and feelings rather than objective reality. As you suggest, you are “living out a different expression of Christianity” than what has typified the Reformed expression of the faith. Thanks for giving us a small glance into your new found expression of faith, which you refer to as a refinement of faith.
Posted in: Is Our Goal to Dialogue or Evangelize Our Muslim Neighbors?
Sounds like a dilemma to me. Do we evangelize or dialog? Which side do we err on? You mention that this concern is raised in the structured setting of formal conversation rather than informal dialog. But then you ask, is our goal to evangelize our Muslim friends? That sounds less than the formal setting.
If the conversation is formal with a goal of reaching agreement on social justice, community cohesion and peace, why would evangelization (talk of Christ’s saving benefits) even be brought into the conversation? That would incite division immediately. It would be seen as a Christian attempt to push the Christian religion as the religious answer to social justice or community peace. If the Muslim party involved in this dialog attempted to promote their religion as the answer to social injustice, you as a Christian would, no doubt, be insulted, as well. Most people don’t see religion as the answer to social and community needs.
As to personal relationships, I’d say, be careful. The only religion that is attractive to another is one’s own religion (a general principle). Just as the gospel is foolishness to those outside of Christianity, so the gospel of the Islamic religion is foolishness to those outside of Islamic circles. Test for yourself. What gospel outside of Christianity do you find to be attractive? Probably none. And those outside of Christian circles don’t really want to hear about the Christian faith. It is “foolishness” as Paul says. So if any of these responders came close to a good approach to a Muslim, I’d say Bill Harris comes closest. As a Christian, be a friend with no hidden agenda. If there comes a time in which your Muslim neighbor wants to talk religion, let them ask. Otherwise, just be a caring friend. And you and your friend will likely both be richer for the relationship.
Posted in: Good Christian Guilt
Nice article Brianna. It has a nice balance to a concern that many in the Reformed tradition seem to feel. I think that concern has something to do with the legalistic perspective of the Reformed faith. Reformed people have always placed a certain emphasis on law. I’m recalling, in my mind, Calvin’s three uses of the law. The using of the law as a rule of gratitude seems to easily backfire and result in guilt, whether warranted or not.
When Reformed Christians speak of the law as a rule of gratitude for Christian living, it easily disintegrates into a measuring stick for Christian living. And when you don’t measure up, the result is guilt and guilty feelings.
The Pharisees, of course, were driven by law. They would use the law as a measuring stick to guilt their fellow Jews and Jesus into obedience. Jesus didn’t buy into such a mentality. Jesus seemed to dismiss much of the Jewish cherished laws. Instead Jesus’ emphasis was on compassion. Have you ever noticed how often Jesus was characterized as having compassion on and for people, whether on the crowds, individuals, sinners, or even good people? And much of Jesus’ teachings focused on compassion. Have you ever noticed how often the Pharisees were characterized as having compassion? Not once. So as to Jesus’ teaching and example, law and compassion seem to be antithetical to each other.
Paul, at times encouraged joyful giving, akin to having compassion. As Reformed Christians we, instead, follow a measuring stick of grateful giving (legalistic), which gets spelled out as giving a measurable tithe, or an individual quota, a classical quota, and a denominational quota. It all gets broken down into a legalistic amount that Reformed Christians should be giving, whether as churches or as individuals. And when not meeting that measure, the result is guilty feelings and guilt. The law, even as a rule (measuring stick) of gratitude (which the Pharisees would also advocate) becomes a measure of our failure more often than a measure of our success.
Law or legalism most often has a negative effect of bringing about guilt and feelings of doubt. Even the use of the law as a rule of gratitude is not so different than what the Pharisees practiced. I’m quite certain they would have seen law keeping as rule of gratitude for the deliverance they felt from God, too. But they put a heavy emphasis on human responsibility to be law keepers, even as Reformed people have done. And our failure always seems to bring about guilt. That is another emphasis of the Reformed faith, human failure.
Christ wants our lives to be characterized by compassion, whether it is forgiving others or doing good for others, but not as legalistic law keepers. Perhaps the secret to a joyous Christian experience is to get our eyes off the law and instead live compassionate lives of love for God and neighbor.
Posted in: Coffee Time: Can We Intentionally Form Faith While Drinking Coffee?
Thanks Laura, for an interesting concept: a more focused conversation time after the worship service while having coffee. I remember, years ago (probably 40 or so) the ministers (two of them) who carried considerable authority in the church, strongly suggested that the members forgo the frivolous conversations he and his fellow minister were hearing during coffee time after church. Instead the members should focus their conversations on more spiritual and uplifting matters, maybe even including reflections of the sermon. Out, were the conversations about the movie we saw the previous week, the vacation that friends had taken, the new car we were looking to buy, etc. etc. We were new at this church and still considering whether we wanted to join. After a few weeks of focused conversation and feeling uncomfortable with it, we stopped attending that particular church. Such focused conversation may be good for some, but definitely not all.
Posted in: Ask for the Ancient Paths
Thanks, Joshua, for the advice. But to simply ask God for the ancient paths, to which he gives Jesus as the answer, is rather simplistic. Thomas Jefferson might have agreed with your answer and quoted Matthew 11:28-30 as well. He was a strong believer in the teachings of Jesus Christ but had little use for the rest of the Bible. He called himself a Christian deist. I wonder if he qualified for having found the ancient paths?
Then there are Reformed Christians, a good many (maybe, the majority) who have been raised in the Reformed faith all their lives. They assume that the ancient paths is what they have been taught all their lives and would never think to question those cherished and ancient teachings. There are also the Baptists who generally tend to be Arminian when it comes to salvation, but are called apostates or heretics by the early Reformers. There are also Pentecostals who emphasize the personal experience of salvation along with the experience of miraculous gifts. And there are hundreds of other denominations, each having their own emphasis as to the Christian life. Each group seems to have their own way and perspective on interpreting the Bible and understanding the ancient paths.
So to say, when the burden of trying to figure things out on our own becomes too great, simply look to Jesus and we will be given rest for our souls, this sound pretty simplistic. But I guess Thomas Jefferson would say the same, and he was a person deserving of great respect. So who am I to argue? Thanks Joshua.
Posted in: Homosexuality and Holy Uncertainty
Thanks, Syd, for your article on uncertainty. I especially like your analogy of right/wrong compass and the better/worse compass, and how we use one or the other when applying direction either to ourselves or to others. How true that is.
I’m not sure what to make of your “waiting in uncertainty” posture. I’m not even sure that the two sojourners had to wait very long in uncertainty, not even a full day. But what does waiting in uncertainty mean? It certainly doesn’t mean waiting around, doing nothing. It doesn’t mean not wrestling with the issue at hand, even as these two disciples wrestled with the idea that their Savior had been crucified and buried. Certainly they shared their ideas, thoughts, and misgivings, as well as their hopes.
As to the homosexual issue facing our denomination, it would seem that some of the uncertainty has been removed, at least for the present and near future. Ministers and office bearers may not participate in a same sex marriages in any way, and by way of being models for their congregations it would be best if members didn’t participate in such weddings either. We don’t believe in double standards, do we? Nor will married same sex couples be allowed to be members of our churches. That much we can be certain of. For many that doesn’t seem to be a reason to rejoice. At present it seems more like waiting with doubt and fear for the church we love (maybe even as the sojourners felt on the way to Emmaus). And I can’t imagine it means to let sleeping dogs lie. Thanks Syd for food for thought.
Posted in: Homosexuality and Holy Uncertainty
This is becoming an interesting conversation. I appreciate the insights some are laying out on the table in regard to hermeneutics (or principles of interpreting Scripture). Andrew suggests that we (the church) are abandoning a more conservative view for a more open and permissive view of interpreting the Bible, and thus are even considering enveloping homosexuals into the full life of the church, as full members. It is true, there are two ways to read Scripture, even on the homosexual issue. One, reading Romans 1 literally, would completely exclude the homosexuals from the church and see them as heathens, except, possibly, as objects of evangelism. Or a second reading is that Paul was speaking of a particular and heinous form of homosexual abuse and not of respectable gays or same sex married people that Paul, either knew nothing about or wasn’t addressing.
But the reality is that the church has always used both the more restrictive and the more open hermeneutic as it has seen fit, but generally moving from the more traditional (restrictive) to the more open. I’m speaking of our denomination, and not looking over the fence at other Christian denominations or groups.
One issue where this is obvious is in regard to Sunday observance. In the past (50 years ago or so) Sunday was seen as a Christian Sabbath where CRC Christians were very restricted in what they could do on Sunday (no sports, no work, no restaurants, no newspapers, no bicycle riding for children, no meal preparation, etc.) Today, in CRCs, Sunday is celebrated as the Lord’s Day (not a sabbath) and nearly anything goes. Nothing is nicer than going out to a restaurant for a nice dinner after church, or breakfast before church.
Or what about divorce. I remember when divorce was sanctioned in the CRC only under the condition of marital unfaithfulness, not even spousal abuse was a legitimate grounds. And those divorced were not allow to teach or hold office in the church. That has gone out the door for a more open interpretation of the Bible.
Or what about separation from the world and worldly amusements? I couldn’t dance, go to the show, play cards (other than UNO), etc. etc.
Or what about women in church office, or the so called “headship” principle? I haven’t heard that word in twenty years. We ‘ve pretty much removed the word “obey” from our CRC wedding forms. And there was no doubt that God forbade women from holding places of authority over men inside the church, as well as in society. Now we have a different understanding of the Bible. Women can be elders, deacons and ministers, all based on a more open hermeneutic.
Or what about Christian education? I remember when it was a requirement for church office bearers and Calvin faculty to enroll their children in the Christian school system. It was a covenant principle which was at the heart of our Reformed theology. Now Christian education is a nice CRC elective.
Or what about our narrower view toward the Holy Spirit’s role in the Christian’s life that was held in the past? Now increasingly we are adopting a Pentecostal and experiential perspective by which the Christian’s experience of salvation becomes more important than God’s role. Dancing in the aisles of church is evidence of a Spirit filled life. Now spiritual warfare is a matter of demons influencing people from some pseudo reality. The third wave movement is increasingly making inroads into the church because a more open hermeneutic allows and even encourages it.
Or what about interracial marriage? That was a definite no no for Christians. But, now, a more open interpretation of the Bible says, yes, by all means.
And we could go on to other issues but this will suffice. The point, is that Western Christianity, including (or especially) the CRC has always used both a closed minded traditional approach to interpreting the Bible, as well as a more open and less restrictive approach to hermeneutics. Just as the church has opened its doors to women in leadership (even at Synod) and to have authority over men and women, so also within the next twenty years the church will open its doors to homosexuals and will fully recognize their marriages as God ordained and will be seen as valuable assets to our churches, no different from any other member. And this will happen because we will see and understand that the Bible (our authority) tells us not to show prejudice against anyone, especially within the church. It’s a shame that this can’t happen sooner than later before we lose our reputation as a welcoming voice in our society.
Posted in: Homosexuality and Holy Uncertainty
Thanks Richard for your input. On a website like this we sure get a variety of opinions, and it’s good to hear your opinion, as well. But I think your reasoning falls short in a couple of places. One, your comment that has Paul saying slavery is wrong because Paul considers Onesimus as a brother and should be treated graciously rather than as he deserves as a runaway slave doesn’t follow sound reasoning. Paul doesn’t ask Philemon to release Onesimus from his slavery or suggest that slavery is wrong, but only to treat him beyond that which he deserves because he has been so useful to Paul. Paul doesn’t say that all slaves should be treated as brothers, only Onesimus. Nor is Paul condemning the institution of slavery. Paul never criticizes the institution of slavery in the Old Testament as practiced by the Jews, or the practice within his own Roman culture. In fact, Paul likens Christianity to the institution of slavery, only a willing slavery, where the slave lives in willing obedience to his owner and master. If Paul considered slavery as wrong, I doubt that he would use the practice of slavery as a model for the Christian’s life. I think you are pushing way beyond what Paul had in his mind. You are imposing your own convictions on him.
As to your thoughts about the Bible’s message in regard to homosexuality and its clarity, I think you may be on a slippery slope. Although there appears to be a clear condemnation of homosexuality in Romans 1, as well as in other passages (Old Testament), what is not clear at all is if Paul is talking about homosexuality across the board. It’s obvious he is talking about those who suppress and deny God’s divine nature. He is talking about those who refuse to honor and give thanks to him. He is talking about those who worship man-made idols instead of the God of heaven and earth. Even when the Old Testament criticizes homosexuals it is those who demonstrate a perverted practice from within a heathen religious culture. Paul or the Old Testament isn’t condemning homosexuals who claim a commitment to Christ and to the faith of the Bible and who want to be useful to God in his present kingdom. So it seems likely that Paul isn’t criticizing all homosexuals, but only those who pervert human sexuality. Paul could have as easily condemned those who pervert heterosexual sexual relationships. And if he did, such condemnation would not include a normal heterosexual sexual relationship within the bonds of marriage, especially a Christian marriage. So what you, Richard, claim to be clear is not at all clear to many who read the same Bible verses as you read. What is clear, is that Paul is condemning the hatred of God by the heathen, but at the same time promises eternal life to those who persevere in doing good and by such seek honor, glory and eternal life. That’s sounds like any Christian homosexual who loves the Lord and seeks to honor God through a chaste life or through marital commitment in a life long relationship of love.
Such scrutiny of Scripture has nothing to do with the undermining of Scriptural authority but rather a seeking for God’s message of salvation for those who have been chosen by God. If there is uncertainty (not a holy uncertainty) it is the uncertainty planted by those who misrepresent God’s intentions and tend to be exclusionary of those different from themselves.
Thanks Al (Mulder) for your take on uncertainty or looking into a glass darkly... It’s obvious that Bible believing Christians do not hear the Spirit saying the same thing on much of anything, Hence the thousands of different Christian denominations, all claiming the Bible as their authority but yet believing different things on every topic coming out of Scripture. Do we call this a Spirit led church?