I am not certain that labeling things as left, centre or right is helpful to a fruitful conversation, let alone making the charge that "Canadian" Banner editors "liked" to be provocative. That individuals may disagree with the arguments laid out in some of the articles that were published is one thing and an opportunity for an ongoing dialogue, however, we always need to ask ourselves whether our comments occasionally slip into ad hominem attacks.
The comment, "It's also worth asking whether we should have such Canadian dominance of the Banner editorship when a large majority of CRC members are U. S. citizens," raises an important question. Why does citizenship in a nation state trump membership in the Body of Christ? Does civil religion take precedence to following Jesus Christ?
Paul VanderKlay raises some important points above regarding the mandate given the Banner by Synod over the years in contrast to other writers who feel that mandate needs to be revised. The question that needs to be asked is whether there has been shift within the CRC "not" to a more conservative outlook on issues, but a shift from it's Reformed roots to realignment with North American fundamentalism.
Regardless, the Banner and it's editors are an easy targets for what are ongoing pastoral and ecclesiastical discussions on various topics at annual Synods. That these topics are on the table at all, is a reflection of what local churches are struggling with in ministering to their flock. If pastoral care is to be extended that means both dialogue and engagement with scripture and God's creation is required rather than mounting the ramparts.
Though I can understand Hamstra and Sikkema's point about furthering the kingdom, I feel they have both missed the point on "stewardship" by focusing purely on the monetary aspect of the transaction. Both congregations in the relationship are involved in tilling the fields of the Lord and contributing to the upkeep of his flock. The landlord church may or may not need the rent, nontheless the hope would be that whatever is collected would go to furthering the Kingdom. Secondly, the tenant church may or may not be able to pay rent, nonetheless we are called to give of our gifts to further the the Kingdom. Should the landlord church decide to forgo the rent to further the Kingdom, that is also a gift.
There is a Foucaultian post-modern tendency to view relationships with suspicion when it comes to the matter of power.
Though I can understand that "power" might be an issue, nonetheless a landlord / tenant relationship is usually premised on a contractual relationship with obligations and responsibilities similar to the concept of a covenantal relationship. Secondly, that contractual relationship is regulated by legislation and civil authorities where recourse for remedies can be pursued even though it may not always work effectively.
Moreover, quite apart from the state ensuring that the interests of the respective parties being protected there are also other matters which need to be addressed that are raised by Harry Bossenkool and Brian Tebben.
As I've indicated in previous posts, I can understand the desire to further Kingdom work.
What I don't understand is the avoidance to engage in the notion that these congregations operate within civil and legislation frameworks as two distinct corporate entities.
Framing the matter as purely a monetary / power imbalance ignores both the biblical stewardship relationship between the parties, as well as the civil / legal issues that arise when two parties jointly agree to share in the use of a facility. What Hanford CRC has offered the other church meeting in it's space may "feel good" but may also be problematic in the eyes of the civil authorities, as well as, other parties such as insurance companies, e.g. what binds the other church to abide by CRCNA Safe Church policy.
The article above does not provide a lot of detail on the Hanford CRC relationship, however, the Brian Tebben example is more helpful and moves in the right direction. Harry Boessenkool also alludes to the complexity of legal constraints that exist in Canada, and probably also the United States, on providing services and facilities on the same equity terms to both church members and non-church members.
John Zylstra: Let's set Walhout aside since not all agree with him, just as you do not. Some of these individuals also do not agree with your theory of the natural world.
Nonetheless, you lumped them in with what you feel Walhout is arguing.
You're deliberately avoiding the point on "fallacy."
You're not engaging people in discussion but trying to beat them into submission to your "singular" notion of the natural world.
I wonder if the argumentation hasn't gone adrift somewhere in this and the related conversation thread, especialy as the author of the article is deliberatively hesitant by stating "The best option is prayerful attention, listening carefully to everything God is saying both in his original creation and in his redemptive gospel."
To argue that Walhout and Demoor need to be disciplined verges on suggesting that heresy or apostasy lies at the root of what was published.
The question as raised, steps over the line of Christian charity.
John is correct. There are ecclesiatical judicial processes in place with to deal with matters of discipline. Empirical science also has it's ground rules. God provides us with two books: scripture and creation.
At heart of this discussion thread and related ones is a difference of opinion on how to do empirical research, and that one particular position on the origin of the universe and life is core CRCNA dogma.
There is a helpful breakdown of the differnet postions in Shiao Chong's blog 3-D Christianity in two articles titled "Beyond Evolution vs. Christianity" & "Religion and Science, Faith and Reason."
I'm going step out on a limb, and say that the position being promoted by John Zylstra who raised the question on displince is position #1. Young Earth Creation or Creation Science. All others contravene scripture.
1. Young Earth Creation or Creation Science – this is the popularly understood “creation” position – it believes that the earth is only about 6,000 years old and rejects macro-evolution (evolution across species) but accepts micro-evolution (evolution within species). The Institute for Creation Research (Henry Morris and Duane Gish) and Answers in Genesis (Ken Ham) are examples of organizations that espouse this view.
2. Progressive Creation or Old Earth Creation – this position accepts the scientific consensus that the universe is 10-15 billion years old but still rejects macro-evolution. It holds that God directly intervened in the development of life in order to create the basic “kinds” or species of organisms over billions of years. An example of a progressive creationist is Hugh Ross and his Reasons to Believe.
3. Evolutionary Creation – this Christian position believes the universe is billions of years old and accepts both macro and micro evolution. It holds that God uses evolutionary processes and sustains them for his purposes. It still holds to a personal God that works in the world, accepts the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus, and believes the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Lamoureux falls into this category, along with world renowned geneticist and evangelical Christian Francis Collins and the Biologos organization.
4. Deistic Evolution – this is historically known as Theistic Evolution but Lamoureux argues that its position is more akin to Deism, where God is impersonal and doesn’t enter into our time-space continuum. In this view, God designed the evolutionary clock, so to speak, wound it up and then let it run its evolutionary course without any intervention or involvement from God. Some notable advocates of this position include Charles Darwin himself, for most of his life. Near the end of his life, Darwin waffled back and forth between Deism and Agnosticism. Other famous advocates are Michael Denton and the famous ex-atheist turned deist, Anthony Flew.
5. Dysteleological Evolution or Atheistic Evolution – this is often popularly misconstrued as THE “evolution” position. Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens have championed this position as the only scientific position.
Unfortunately, John Zylstra's question raises a question whether he is attempting to discipline individuals without using due process, and secondly arguing that his position is dogma when his own position may be suspect and non-scriptural.
John Z: Your respond is more than passing strange since:
1. it is your proposal that Walhout and DeMoor ought to be disciplined;
2. you chose to be an arbiter of what ought go into homes subscribing to the Banner;
3. regardless of your argument to the contrary, the material you cite is primarily sourced from position #1 Young Earth Science or Creation Science; and
4. underlying your articulation of position #1 is that it constitutes the official position of the CRCNA whereby Walhout and DeMoor are judged to be in error and therefore need to be disciplined.
Dialogue means giving people who disgree with you the space to actually disagree with you.
The people who have disageed with you have been graceful in acknowledging the diferences and have not resorted to misinterpreting or twisting what you have said.
As I have indicated in an earlier comment it is apparent that you love your Lord and his Word, but some of your brothers and sisters have expressed in threads on this topic in the Network and Banner that you are less than charitable towards them.
There are brother's and sisters in Christ in the conversation thread "Tomrrow's Theology" who neither share your "particular take" on science and scripture.
They desire, like you, to listen carefully to everything God is saying both in his original creation and his redemptive creation.
It's one thing to have a spirited discussion, and another to declare the author and publisher to be antathema needing strong discipline in a new conversation thread "How would the go about discipling a retired pastor who suggests and promotes changing many of the core CRC doctrines?"
If Walhout is to lose his ministerial credentials and DeMoor is to fired, what is to be done to those whose opinions differ from yours in "Tomorrow's Theology?"
Where is the charity? [1 Corinthians 13] This is what makes the conversation not fruitful.
What is at issue is not John Z's freedom to open a discussion on discipline, but his attempt to silence all discussion on differing points of view other than his own - even to the point of disparging Augustine and Calvin.
Secondly, is the grounds for disciplinary action against Edwin Walhout, et al. John Z. lays out an argument and cites source material which is grounded in position #1 Young Earth Creation or Creation Science [see above] with the underlying assumption that this is the official position of the CRCNA.
This is not to say that there are not people who agree with the Creation Science within the CRC, like John Z.
Nonetheless, there is a large body of people who are both scripture believing Christians and work in the field of science, et al. who disagree with position #1.
Posted in: What Do We Want from The Banner?
I am not certain that labeling things as left, centre or right is helpful to a fruitful conversation, let alone making the charge that "Canadian" Banner editors "liked" to be provocative. That individuals may disagree with the arguments laid out in some of the articles that were published is one thing and an opportunity for an ongoing dialogue, however, we always need to ask ourselves whether our comments occasionally slip into ad hominem attacks.
The comment, "It's also worth asking whether we should have such Canadian dominance of the Banner editorship when a large majority of CRC members are U. S. citizens," raises an important question. Why does citizenship in a nation state trump membership in the Body of Christ? Does civil religion take precedence to following Jesus Christ?
Posted in: What Do We Want from The Banner?
Paul VanderKlay raises some important points above regarding the mandate given the Banner by Synod over the years in contrast to other writers who feel that mandate needs to be revised. The question that needs to be asked is whether there has been shift within the CRC "not" to a more conservative outlook on issues, but a shift from it's Reformed roots to realignment with North American fundamentalism.
Regardless, the Banner and it's editors are an easy targets for what are ongoing pastoral and ecclesiastical discussions on various topics at annual Synods. That these topics are on the table at all, is a reflection of what local churches are struggling with in ministering to their flock. If pastoral care is to be extended that means both dialogue and engagement with scripture and God's creation is required rather than mounting the ramparts.
Posted in: Why We Don't Want To Rent Space
Though I can understand Hamstra and Sikkema's point about furthering the kingdom, I feel they have both missed the point on "stewardship" by focusing purely on the monetary aspect of the transaction. Both congregations in the relationship are involved in tilling the fields of the Lord and contributing to the upkeep of his flock. The landlord church may or may not need the rent, nontheless the hope would be that whatever is collected would go to furthering the Kingdom. Secondly, the tenant church may or may not be able to pay rent, nonetheless we are called to give of our gifts to further the the Kingdom. Should the landlord church decide to forgo the rent to further the Kingdom, that is also a gift.
Posted in: Why We Don't Want To Rent Space
There is a Foucaultian post-modern tendency to view relationships with suspicion when it comes to the matter of power.
Though I can understand that "power" might be an issue, nonetheless a landlord / tenant relationship is usually premised on a contractual relationship with obligations and responsibilities similar to the concept of a covenantal relationship. Secondly, that contractual relationship is regulated by legislation and civil authorities where recourse for remedies can be pursued even though it may not always work effectively.
Moreover, quite apart from the state ensuring that the interests of the respective parties being protected there are also other matters which need to be addressed that are raised by Harry Bossenkool and Brian Tebben.
Posted in: Why We Don't Want To Rent Space
As I've indicated in previous posts, I can understand the desire to further Kingdom work.
What I don't understand is the avoidance to engage in the notion that these congregations operate within civil and legislation frameworks as two distinct corporate entities.
Framing the matter as purely a monetary / power imbalance ignores both the biblical stewardship relationship between the parties, as well as the civil / legal issues that arise when two parties jointly agree to share in the use of a facility. What Hanford CRC has offered the other church meeting in it's space may "feel good" but may also be problematic in the eyes of the civil authorities, as well as, other parties such as insurance companies, e.g. what binds the other church to abide by CRCNA Safe Church policy.
The article above does not provide a lot of detail on the Hanford CRC relationship, however, the Brian Tebben example is more helpful and moves in the right direction. Harry Boessenkool also alludes to the complexity of legal constraints that exist in Canada, and probably also the United States, on providing services and facilities on the same equity terms to both church members and non-church members.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
John Zylstra: Let's set Walhout aside since not all agree with him, just as you do not. Some of these individuals also do not agree with your theory of the natural world.
Nonetheless, you lumped them in with what you feel Walhout is arguing.
You're deliberately avoiding the point on "fallacy."
You're not engaging people in discussion but trying to beat them into submission to your "singular" notion of the natural world.
Therein lies the hubris.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
I wonder if the argumentation hasn't gone adrift somewhere in this and the related conversation thread, especialy as the author of the article is deliberatively hesitant by stating "The best option is prayerful attention, listening carefully to everything God is saying both in his original creation and in his redemptive gospel."
To argue that Walhout and Demoor need to be disciplined verges on suggesting that heresy or apostasy lies at the root of what was published.
The question as raised, steps over the line of Christian charity.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
Hi Adam...
John is correct. There are ecclesiatical judicial processes in place with to deal with matters of discipline. Empirical science also has it's ground rules. God provides us with two books: scripture and creation.
At heart of this discussion thread and related ones is a difference of opinion on how to do empirical research, and that one particular position on the origin of the universe and life is core CRCNA dogma.
There is a helpful breakdown of the differnet postions in Shiao Chong's blog 3-D Christianity in two articles titled "Beyond Evolution vs. Christianity" & "Religion and Science, Faith and Reason."
I'm going step out on a limb, and say that the position being promoted by John Zylstra who raised the question on displince is position #1. Young Earth Creation or Creation Science. All others contravene scripture.
1. Young Earth Creation or Creation Science – this is the popularly understood “creation” position – it believes that the earth is only about 6,000 years old and rejects macro-evolution (evolution across species) but accepts micro-evolution (evolution within species). The Institute for Creation Research (Henry Morris and Duane Gish) and Answers in Genesis (Ken Ham) are examples of organizations that espouse this view.
2. Progressive Creation or Old Earth Creation – this position accepts the scientific consensus that the universe is 10-15 billion years old but still rejects macro-evolution. It holds that God directly intervened in the development of life in order to create the basic “kinds” or species of organisms over billions of years. An example of a progressive creationist is Hugh Ross and his Reasons to Believe.
3. Evolutionary Creation – this Christian position believes the universe is billions of years old and accepts both macro and micro evolution. It holds that God uses evolutionary processes and sustains them for his purposes. It still holds to a personal God that works in the world, accepts the incarnation and resurrection of Jesus, and believes the Bible is the inspired Word of God. Lamoureux falls into this category, along with world renowned geneticist and evangelical Christian Francis Collins and the Biologos organization.
4. Deistic Evolution – this is historically known as Theistic Evolution but Lamoureux argues that its position is more akin to Deism, where God is impersonal and doesn’t enter into our time-space continuum. In this view, God designed the evolutionary clock, so to speak, wound it up and then let it run its evolutionary course without any intervention or involvement from God. Some notable advocates of this position include Charles Darwin himself, for most of his life. Near the end of his life, Darwin waffled back and forth between Deism and Agnosticism. Other famous advocates are Michael Denton and the famous ex-atheist turned deist, Anthony Flew.
5. Dysteleological Evolution or Atheistic Evolution – this is often popularly misconstrued as THE “evolution” position. Atheists like Richard Dawkins, Daniel Dennett and Christopher Hitchens have championed this position as the only scientific position.
Unfortunately, John Zylstra's question raises a question whether he is attempting to discipline individuals without using due process, and secondly arguing that his position is dogma when his own position may be suspect and non-scriptural.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
That would not be a fruitful exercise.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
John Z: Your respond is more than passing strange since:
1. it is your proposal that Walhout and DeMoor ought to be disciplined;
2. you chose to be an arbiter of what ought go into homes subscribing to the Banner;
3. regardless of your argument to the contrary, the material you cite is primarily sourced from position #1 Young Earth Science or Creation Science; and
4. underlying your articulation of position #1 is that it constitutes the official position of the CRCNA whereby Walhout and DeMoor are judged to be in error and therefore need to be disciplined.
Dialogue means giving people who disgree with you the space to actually disagree with you.
The people who have disageed with you have been graceful in acknowledging the diferences and have not resorted to misinterpreting or twisting what you have said.
As I have indicated in an earlier comment it is apparent that you love your Lord and his Word, but some of your brothers and sisters have expressed in threads on this topic in the Network and Banner that you are less than charitable towards them.
Yours in our Lord and Saviour
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
There are brother's and sisters in Christ in the conversation thread "Tomrrow's Theology" who neither share your "particular take" on science and scripture.
They desire, like you, to listen carefully to everything God is saying both in his original creation and his redemptive creation.
It's one thing to have a spirited discussion, and another to declare the author and publisher to be antathema needing strong discipline in a new conversation thread "How would the go about discipling a retired pastor who suggests and promotes changing many of the core CRC doctrines?"
If Walhout is to lose his ministerial credentials and DeMoor is to fired, what is to be done to those whose opinions differ from yours in "Tomorrow's Theology?"
Where is the charity? [1 Corinthians 13] This is what makes the conversation not fruitful.
Posted in: Disciplining a Retired Pastor
Hi Philip W:
What is at issue is not John Z's freedom to open a discussion on discipline, but his attempt to silence all discussion on differing points of view other than his own - even to the point of disparging Augustine and Calvin.
Secondly, is the grounds for disciplinary action against Edwin Walhout, et al. John Z. lays out an argument and cites source material which is grounded in position #1 Young Earth Creation or Creation Science [see above] with the underlying assumption that this is the official position of the CRCNA.
This is not to say that there are not people who agree with the Creation Science within the CRC, like John Z.
Nonetheless, there is a large body of people who are both scripture believing Christians and work in the field of science, et al. who disagree with position #1.
"Ecclesia reformata, semper reformanda"