I'm going suggest there is a "fourth group" in addition to the three indicated in this article, it being a local church that fully maintains its association with its denomination but increasingly finding that the denomination hurts the local church's ministry.
That's my local CRC church. We've had good families come to and join our local church (even become an office bearer), only to leave some years later because the "mission" of the denomination, as revealed in denominational paper and e-publications is perceived as significantly at odds with what they thought (correctly) the local church represented.
In a very real way, the "doing more together" can become "doing what some want to do, institutionally using ministry share funds, even if what those 'some' want to do is not a church ("eccessisatical") thing."
Not only do I wholeheartedly agree with this post, Sam, I think you describe what the CRC Church Order precisely provides for.
I am personally persuaded that the creation of a CRCNA "Board of Trustees," with its own governance documents/rules no less, was a pivotal step in the direction of our regarding the CRC denomination as a separate church rather than as a function of the churches. There is a great tug, I believe, to "be big," to be "influential" (especially politically) as some other so-called mainline protestant denominations and the RC Church are "influencial," to have permanent offices in Washington DC and get regular audiences with representatives and senators, even the White House on occasion. And all of that is good and fine except that is not the function of an institutional church, at least as defined in the reformed tradition, as well as provided for in CO 28.
Excellent article David. Indeed, divorce is usually more destructive than the death of a spouse/parent. Having a good "church family" can make a huge difference in the lives of these families.
Bill: I'm not seeing anything in Sam's article that suggests denominations have no value or purpose, nor that denominations shouldn't exist. In particular, there is no inconsistency with local churches mutually agreeing to commonly confess as to some confessional matters (which is exactly what the CRC Church Order calls for and exactly what we do). But not all confessions (most CRCers and local churches are "a-mill" but not as a common confession) or all actions (many/most/all CRC churches have their own local, some even national or international, ministries) have to be in concert.
Nor should there be -- unless we want to depart from a Reformed church polity -- a denomination that is a separated ("beyond the churches") entity that is quite other than the churches acting in concert as to some tasks, some common confession, and mutual accountability. I would suggest OSJ in practice has become the latter.
Bev: I think you touch on an important point -- and illuminate the critically important reality of the organic (as opposed to institutional) church -- when you say, "not just local congregations, but the local community of believers working together, instead of so often in isolation as independent churches of one denom or another, but as one church expressed through various Kingdom congregations of the community ".
I think the sense of "we are different from you" -- in a bad way -- grows in proportion to the extent we emphasize our church as being our denomination as opposed to our local church.
My local church, and its people, work quite a bit with other (non-CRC) churches and other people from other churches. I'm assuming we aren't unique in that regard?
Darren: I've carefully read and re-read the link you provided (Ministry Plan) and am having difficulty coming away with the message you suggest it holds. At least that message isn't unambiguous.
Beyond that, I take note that, for example, OSJ's "speaking for all CRCers" as to an array of highly specific political questions is increasing, not decreasing. In other words, in terms of practice, I see movement opposite of the direction you say things are moving.
I'd appreciate your perspective as to how, specifically, and in practice, the denomination is "currently in [the] process" of moving in the direction you say it is. Perhaps it is and I'm just not seeing it.
"The question though is...are they orchestrating it in such a way that local churches and/or members can "do justice" in a way that reflects their personal faith and local church expression."
Respectfully, you must not pay much attention to what OSJ does. OSJ takes political positions on very specific political issues and then lobbies for those issues, both with government officials, in the public square, and to (emphasis on "to") CRC members. Frankly, and again respectfully, OSJ evangelizes for the political positions its taken much more zealously and directly than our foreign or home missionaries do for the Christian faith, and I'm not being hyperbolic in saying that.
Once again respectfully, there are few political positions -- on specific political issues -- that OSJ lobbies for where OSJ and I agree as to the political position. But the bottom line is that the what OSJ says, not Doug Vande Griend or any other CRC member, is what the CRC says about this or that political issue/position. Just today, another email blast went out from OSJ taking a specific position (framed as a prayer concern) about federal government action as to a proposed pipeline from North Dakota to Illinois.
Indeed, I would suggest that OSJ is at odds, politically speaking, with a super-majority of CRC members. Still, appeals to the constraints of Church Order Article 28 go unanswered (that is, not even responded to).
To be clear, I am not pitching and never have pitched for the CRC to change it's political positions, but rather to take up, quoting CO Art. 28, "ecclesiastical matters only." I want to be able to worship with those who disagree with my political (and economic, etc) thinking. Having a big brother in Grand Rapids telling us who is right and who is wrong in our political (and economic, etc) positions (whatever the positions) is destructive toward that end.
Staci: I am being as "constructive" (in my criticism) as I can, given what is. Church Order Article 28 has meaning, even if the meaning is forgotten or ignored. I'm not "undermining" the church but rather doing the opposite, encouraging "the church" to be what its rules provide for it and not otherwise. And I think the language I use is both respectful and factual.
If I'm "undermining," this entire post by Sam Hamstra is undermining. He and I are both trying very hard to be constructive. Were I not intending to be constructive, I just wouldn't bother with any of this. It takes my time and I have a very full occupational, family, neighborhood and church life.
Wendy: To the contrary, I believe our personal discussion was more "sound bite-ish" than this more considered considered, written-down-so-you-have-time-to-think, Network exchange.
Yes, you and I did have some discussion some years ago. There was not nearly enough time (we had a church event going on), nor nearly enough audience (it was just you and me) to make that discussion as meaningful as a Network exchange.
BTW, I have no idea at present about "multiplication of staff" -- whoever mentioned that, it wasn't me.
Finally, World Renew's organizational model would be a great model for OSJ. World Renew is a separate legal entity, with it own Board of Directors (Trustees) and it does not receive ministry shares. Indeed, World Renew is even more "separated" from the institutional CRC than Calvin College. World Renew does work that the entire CRC membership pretty much supports -- hence World Renew's ability to very successfully raise funds without ministry share assessments. Why can't or shouldn't that model be used by OSJ, especially given Church Order Article 28? If it did, then those of a political inclination matching OSJ's could give to that work and those who of a different inclination could give to Center for Public Justice (in Washington DC, also its own organization) or another organization that did work in line with their political inclinations.
I'd be happy to very specifically respond to that question Kris, but only if Staci says its OK. My response to similar questions in similar threads have gotten me in trouble.
Part of my answer (which I hope doesn't get me in trouble already), is that you are asking the wrong question. The denomination engaging in political lobbying isn't OK even if OSJ's (or even Synod's) understanding about Biblical justice is fully correct (not that I think OSJ's is). Just as the denomination should not be opening dairy operations across the country (because it isn't the self-described task of the denomination, and wisely/properly so, to be in the dairy business), so the denomination, via OSJ or otherwise, should not be engaging in the political lobbying of governments about specific legislation or political postures, in behalf of CRC members; nor the lobbying of CRC members as to specific legislation or political postures. The OSJ/denomination doing so stands the CRC church order on its head, making the denomination that which directs the congregations (whether they want it or not, like it or not, object to it or not), instead of the other way around.
Again, I refer to the constraints of CO Article 28, as well as the CRC's general historical appreciation of the Kuyperian concept of institutional sphere sovereignty. Both political lobbying and operating dairy farms are good things to do, and things we have to do with the understanding that all of life must be done with the recognition of the lordship of Jesus Christ. The objection relates to who "we" are when these activities are undertaken.
Staci -- may I specifically respond to Kris' specific question, or is that outside the topic of this thread?
I too am a grandfather, have researched these questions, and care deeply about God's creation. Notwithstanding, I have concluded the 2015 Paris Agreement is counterproductive toward the goal of true "creation care," as are climate change alarmists' strategies generally. I also believe the CRC's advocacy on this issue is ill-informed and counter-productive.
Posted in: Five Steps to Denominational Renewal - Part 3
I'm going suggest there is a "fourth group" in addition to the three indicated in this article, it being a local church that fully maintains its association with its denomination but increasingly finding that the denomination hurts the local church's ministry.
That's my local CRC church. We've had good families come to and join our local church (even become an office bearer), only to leave some years later because the "mission" of the denomination, as revealed in denominational paper and e-publications is perceived as significantly at odds with what they thought (correctly) the local church represented.
In a very real way, the "doing more together" can become "doing what some want to do, institutionally using ministry share funds, even if what those 'some' want to do is not a church ("eccessisatical") thing."
Posted in: Five Steps to Denominational Renewal - Part 2
Not only do I wholeheartedly agree with this post, Sam, I think you describe what the CRC Church Order precisely provides for.
I am personally persuaded that the creation of a CRCNA "Board of Trustees," with its own governance documents/rules no less, was a pivotal step in the direction of our regarding the CRC denomination as a separate church rather than as a function of the churches. There is a great tug, I believe, to "be big," to be "influential" (especially politically) as some other so-called mainline protestant denominations and the RC Church are "influencial," to have permanent offices in Washington DC and get regular audiences with representatives and senators, even the White House on occasion. And all of that is good and fine except that is not the function of an institutional church, at least as defined in the reformed tradition, as well as provided for in CO 28.
I look forward to your Part 3. :-)
Posted in: How to Help the Single Parent
Excellent article David. Indeed, divorce is usually more destructive than the death of a spouse/parent. Having a good "church family" can make a huge difference in the lives of these families.
Posted in: Five Steps to Denominational Renewal - Part 2
Bill: I'm not seeing anything in Sam's article that suggests denominations have no value or purpose, nor that denominations shouldn't exist. In particular, there is no inconsistency with local churches mutually agreeing to commonly confess as to some confessional matters (which is exactly what the CRC Church Order calls for and exactly what we do). But not all confessions (most CRCers and local churches are "a-mill" but not as a common confession) or all actions (many/most/all CRC churches have their own local, some even national or international, ministries) have to be in concert.
Nor should there be -- unless we want to depart from a Reformed church polity -- a denomination that is a separated ("beyond the churches") entity that is quite other than the churches acting in concert as to some tasks, some common confession, and mutual accountability. I would suggest OSJ in practice has become the latter.
Posted in: Five Steps to Denominational Renewal - Part 2
Bev: I think you touch on an important point -- and illuminate the critically important reality of the organic (as opposed to institutional) church -- when you say, "not just local congregations, but the local community of believers working together, instead of so often in isolation as independent churches of one denom or another, but as one church expressed through various Kingdom congregations of the community ".
I think the sense of "we are different from you" -- in a bad way -- grows in proportion to the extent we emphasize our church as being our denomination as opposed to our local church.
My local church, and its people, work quite a bit with other (non-CRC) churches and other people from other churches. I'm assuming we aren't unique in that regard?
Posted in: Five Steps to Denominational Renewal - Part 2
Darren: I've carefully read and re-read the link you provided (Ministry Plan) and am having difficulty coming away with the message you suggest it holds. At least that message isn't unambiguous.
Beyond that, I take note that, for example, OSJ's "speaking for all CRCers" as to an array of highly specific political questions is increasing, not decreasing. In other words, in terms of practice, I see movement opposite of the direction you say things are moving.
I'd appreciate your perspective as to how, specifically, and in practice, the denomination is "currently in [the] process" of moving in the direction you say it is. Perhaps it is and I'm just not seeing it.
Posted in: Five Steps to Denominational Renewal - Part 2
Darren: You say, about OSJ:
"The question though is...are they orchestrating it in such a way that local churches and/or members can "do justice" in a way that reflects their personal faith and local church expression."
Respectfully, you must not pay much attention to what OSJ does. OSJ takes political positions on very specific political issues and then lobbies for those issues, both with government officials, in the public square, and to (emphasis on "to") CRC members. Frankly, and again respectfully, OSJ evangelizes for the political positions its taken much more zealously and directly than our foreign or home missionaries do for the Christian faith, and I'm not being hyperbolic in saying that.
Once again respectfully, there are few political positions -- on specific political issues -- that OSJ lobbies for where OSJ and I agree as to the political position. But the bottom line is that the what OSJ says, not Doug Vande Griend or any other CRC member, is what the CRC says about this or that political issue/position. Just today, another email blast went out from OSJ taking a specific position (framed as a prayer concern) about federal government action as to a proposed pipeline from North Dakota to Illinois.
Indeed, I would suggest that OSJ is at odds, politically speaking, with a super-majority of CRC members. Still, appeals to the constraints of Church Order Article 28 go unanswered (that is, not even responded to).
To be clear, I am not pitching and never have pitched for the CRC to change it's political positions, but rather to take up, quoting CO Art. 28, "ecclesiastical matters only." I want to be able to worship with those who disagree with my political (and economic, etc) thinking. Having a big brother in Grand Rapids telling us who is right and who is wrong in our political (and economic, etc) positions (whatever the positions) is destructive toward that end.
Posted in: Five Steps to Denominational Renewal - Part 2
Staci: I am being as "constructive" (in my criticism) as I can, given what is. Church Order Article 28 has meaning, even if the meaning is forgotten or ignored. I'm not "undermining" the church but rather doing the opposite, encouraging "the church" to be what its rules provide for it and not otherwise. And I think the language I use is both respectful and factual.
If I'm "undermining," this entire post by Sam Hamstra is undermining. He and I are both trying very hard to be constructive. Were I not intending to be constructive, I just wouldn't bother with any of this. It takes my time and I have a very full occupational, family, neighborhood and church life.
Posted in: Five Steps to Denominational Renewal - Part 2
Wendy: To the contrary, I believe our personal discussion was more "sound bite-ish" than this more considered considered, written-down-so-you-have-time-to-think, Network exchange.
Yes, you and I did have some discussion some years ago. There was not nearly enough time (we had a church event going on), nor nearly enough audience (it was just you and me) to make that discussion as meaningful as a Network exchange.
BTW, I have no idea at present about "multiplication of staff" -- whoever mentioned that, it wasn't me.
Finally, World Renew's organizational model would be a great model for OSJ. World Renew is a separate legal entity, with it own Board of Directors (Trustees) and it does not receive ministry shares. Indeed, World Renew is even more "separated" from the institutional CRC than Calvin College. World Renew does work that the entire CRC membership pretty much supports -- hence World Renew's ability to very successfully raise funds without ministry share assessments. Why can't or shouldn't that model be used by OSJ, especially given Church Order Article 28? If it did, then those of a political inclination matching OSJ's could give to that work and those who of a different inclination could give to Center for Public Justice (in Washington DC, also its own organization) or another organization that did work in line with their political inclinations.
Just trying to be constructive ...
Posted in: Five Steps to Denominational Renewal - Part 2
I'd be happy to very specifically respond to that question Kris, but only if Staci says its OK. My response to similar questions in similar threads have gotten me in trouble.
Part of my answer (which I hope doesn't get me in trouble already), is that you are asking the wrong question. The denomination engaging in political lobbying isn't OK even if OSJ's (or even Synod's) understanding about Biblical justice is fully correct (not that I think OSJ's is). Just as the denomination should not be opening dairy operations across the country (because it isn't the self-described task of the denomination, and wisely/properly so, to be in the dairy business), so the denomination, via OSJ or otherwise, should not be engaging in the political lobbying of governments about specific legislation or political postures, in behalf of CRC members; nor the lobbying of CRC members as to specific legislation or political postures. The OSJ/denomination doing so stands the CRC church order on its head, making the denomination that which directs the congregations (whether they want it or not, like it or not, object to it or not), instead of the other way around.
Again, I refer to the constraints of CO Article 28, as well as the CRC's general historical appreciation of the Kuyperian concept of institutional sphere sovereignty. Both political lobbying and operating dairy farms are good things to do, and things we have to do with the understanding that all of life must be done with the recognition of the lordship of Jesus Christ. The objection relates to who "we" are when these activities are undertaken.
Staci -- may I specifically respond to Kris' specific question, or is that outside the topic of this thread?
Posted in: Five Steps to Denominational Renewal - Part 2
So what is the annual OSJ budget?
Posted in: A Grandfather's Perspective: Why I Care about Climate Change
I too am a grandfather, have researched these questions, and care deeply about God's creation. Notwithstanding, I have concluded the 2015 Paris Agreement is counterproductive toward the goal of true "creation care," as are climate change alarmists' strategies generally. I also believe the CRC's advocacy on this issue is ill-informed and counter-productive.