Thank you for putting in the effort to help churches find and encourage officers of the church. As a pastor I sympathize with the anxiety our members feel when considering council elections. Many of your suggestions will certainly be helpful for people prayerfully considering serving their church council.
However, two passages of your document in particular will work against your program goals because they are not true and they are not representative of the work done throughout the CRC.
The two points I wish to address are both found under “Top 10 Things You Can Do When Signing the Covenant for Office-Bearers (CfO) Is a Challenge" The first section in question, Point 5 "Distinguish Between Core and Comprehensive Agreement" says:
Traditionally, the CRC has distinguished between core agreement (affirming the “system of doctrine”) and absolute agreement on every point. The CfO emphasized upholding the confessions and not teaching against them—not requiring enthusiastic affirmation of every line.
However, the post Human Sexuality Report (HSR) environment has shifted this balance. In many places, there is now an expectation that Office bearers must affirm the denomination stance on sexuality, not just refrain from teaching against it. This has near of the field of who can serve.
Even so, councils can still clarify for nominees that signing doesn't mean you have to be without questions, yet does mean you are committing to uphold the teaching of the church during your term and not promote views that contradict it.
While many congregations may have had an unconfirmed tradition of not affirming the entirety of the Creeds and Confessions as fully agreeing with the word of God, that is exactly the language of the CfO:
We also affirm three confessions—the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort—as historic Reformed expressions of the Christian faith, whose doctrines fully agree with the Word of God.
Even more so, officers of the church are not simply to avoid teaching against the word of God as affirmed by the Creeds and Confessions, but to actively promote this view of scripture. Officers of the church promise to be “formed and governed by them”, to “heartily believe” them, “promote and defend” them, and conform not only their teaching but their “serving” and “living” to them. This language is not a new development of synod, nor is it the ethics of a post HSR environment. It is the affirmation of what officers of the church were always, officially, expected to be.
Grateful for these expressions of faith, we promise to be formed and governed by them. We heartily believe and will promote and defend their doctrines faithfully, conforming our preaching, teaching, writing, serving, and living to them.
In addition, Point 8, “Acknowledge and Respect Conscientious Objections” says:
Since Synod 2022 however, the CRCNA has identified the traditional view on sexuality, as articulated in the HSR, as part of the confessional teaching of the church. This means that office-bearers are now expected to not only uphold the Three Forms of Unity but to affirm the specific interpretation of sexuality found in the HSR as confessional.
Synod 2022 did not make the HSR a part of the Creeds and Confessions. However, in a response to officers rejecting the official and undisputed teaching of the CRC affirmed by synodical statements from 1973, 2002, and 2016, synod 2022 defined the word “unchastity” in Heidelberg Catechism Q.108 in accordance with the historic, Reformed hermeneutics of scripture. The “specific interpretation of sexuality” that is actually confessional is the one that has, for almost 3,500 years, been written and preserved by God for God’s people in the words of the prophets and apostles. If potential officers “love Scripture, the Reformed confessions, and the church” (pt. 8), then the body of what we believe, teach, promote, and defend is not dependent on the Reformed confessions but on the scripture which these officers love.
Being honest with our potential officebearers gives the church elders and deacons who can honestly and wholeheartedly serve God’s people in the CRC, and promote the gospel, justice, and equity effectively to people we evangelize and disciple. Giving incomplete expectations to our potential officebearers will neither love God, the church, or those we proclaim the gospel to.
I ask the Safe Church Ministry, carefully and respectfully, to please, please reconsider this “sermon” list.
If we are the Church that admits with Jesus (and the Prophets and Apostles) that the Word of God is the gift that washes, redeems, and transforms us, then we can agree that an overwhelming number of these messages are not “sermons.” Many of them simply deny the inspiration of scripture – the first in the list being the most offensive (yet). Others pay little or no attention to The Word of God at all. Few have any Good News of Christ’s sacrificial redemption by faith. These may be speeches, or even timely cries from the heart, but they are not “sermons.” Many of these messages are not able to be preached by pastors who not only know Christ, but have signed The Covenant of Officebearers promising their teaching and preaching be in alignment with The Word as well as our Creeds and Confessions.
I am with you in admitting that addressing this very topic from the pulpit is necessary. But as Christians, we must do it as Christians, and that means being bought and formed by The Word God sent to us. That means being taught, reproved, corrected and trained for righteousness by that Word – not standing in place of God by correcting and reproving The Word. The hope and healing we and our congregations need will not come when we deny The Word and Spirit God has given us for that exact work.
Thanks, Amanda. I appreciate much of what you said here. Unfortunately, none of what you wrote was included in the recommendation in this post. In fact, the post recommended these messages as if they are in line with, or a continuation of, the CRC’s work in addressing abuse and violence with the same attention to being Christians finding Christian hope and solutions until Jesus returns. Unfortunately, as an organization, Sojourners cannot be relied on to provide specifically Christian hope and solutions.
I am all for reading “outside our own tradition” (I wasn’t raised Christian, much less CRC) and I do it all the time. However, we need to be honest about it. It only leads to more questions and confusion when a CRC ministry recommends “sermons” without any of the disclaimer you responded with. As a pastor, I am desperately trying to help the people God has given into my care and orbit see the difference between what is of Christ and what is anti-Christ – and to run toward Christ. Maybe because of this work I hope to have more support from the denomination, but assumptions and/or poor recommendations from a denominational ministry doesn’t help a pastor’s work. Perhaps amending the post would provide a more honest reason for why these messages were recommended, and what there usefulness may or may not be.
I respectfully ask again for the Safe Church ministry to reconsider this list of messages provided by Sojourners. More specifically, to remove at least the 6 Unitarian Universalist messages from the “sermons” listed. If those specific messages cannot be removed from this list, then I ask that the Safe Church ministry provide a disclaimer on this page explaining that many of these examples of preaching, which this denominational ministry still recommends as “resources on how to preach on the topic of domestic violence” are anti-Christian and do not proclaim a scriptural Christ.
Certainly the Safe Church ministry can agree that recommending preaching that addresses injustice without any appeal to the gospel of Christ crucifying our sin and resurrecting the faithful to new life will hinder the goals of awareness, healing, and transformation this ministry aims to promote. Certainly the Safe Church ministry can agree that the Christian Reformed Church needs to be clear about the gospel and the true means of grace, healing and justice on Earth.
With respect to Christ and the hope of this denominational ministry, please remove – or at least properly identify – the anti-Christian messages provided on this page.
Thank you for posting the disclaimer! This gets me wondering: Why Sojourners? If SoJo has such a hard time discerning a Biblical sermons from unBiblical (or anti-Biblical, even), maybe there’s a better source? I’d be more than willing to take time to help you find some, or contribute my own before throwing up a grab bag of messages that may or may not help the Church.
Thanks for posting, Viviana. I have a few of questions. This looks to be self-guided; is there help from a facilitator or ministry leader? What is the objective of the workshop? What curriculum is being used? Is there a biblical theme/narrative/premise that this workshop is based on? Sorry, but I’m not seeing a lot of information on what this really is, and for $85.00 I’d like to know. Thanks!
Seriously, this link needs to be taken down. I can’t show this to my youth group leaders, much less my church’s kids – and certainly not my daughter.
I see you're taking requests for better information I'll happily take some time and post those things here, and also as a separate article on the Network to correct this link if it's not taken down.
Now I have more reading to do. Thanks, Ben. This sounds like an interesting categorization of ministry, especially in light of the Great Commission: The “what” has to have a “how.”
This is a curious statement. I believe the Church did make large strides under a Roman government which codified slavery in various ways, as well as considering The Way to be an ‘outlaw’ religion. Certainly believing slaves in Philippi and believers within “Caesar’s household” [Phil. 4.22] were not considered “equals” under the law of Rome – and yet they aknowledged each other (perhaps secretly!) as brothers and sisters in Christ. This is the miracle and the power of hearts won out of a fallen world by the Holy Spirit. The Gospel of a resurrected Christ transcends barriers that humans erect against it.
So, are the premises of the Belhar faulty? In which ways? If we answer “yes”, then we need to examine ourselves to see on what level we can – or cannot – “confess” a not-quite-so–exact document.
The author seems not to be aware that CRT has different definitions and outworkings, despite quoting the ABA. Nor does the author understand the difference between political enemies and differences among brothers and sisters in the Church regarding the scope and purpose of confessions. Understanding these differences and working with them would go much farther with more constructive solutions for the Church.
Posted in: Recruiting Office-Bearers in Challenging Times
Thank you for putting in the effort to help churches find and encourage officers of the church. As a pastor I sympathize with the anxiety our members feel when considering council elections. Many of your suggestions will certainly be helpful for people prayerfully considering serving their church council.
However, two passages of your document in particular will work against your program goals because they are not true and they are not representative of the work done throughout the CRC.
The two points I wish to address are both found under “Top 10 Things You Can Do When Signing the Covenant for Office-Bearers (CfO) Is a Challenge" The first section in question, Point 5 "Distinguish Between Core and Comprehensive Agreement" says:
While many congregations may have had an unconfirmed tradition of not affirming the entirety of the Creeds and Confessions as fully agreeing with the word of God, that is exactly the language of the CfO:
Even more so, officers of the church are not simply to avoid teaching against the word of God as affirmed by the Creeds and Confessions, but to actively promote this view of scripture. Officers of the church promise to be “formed and governed by them”, to “heartily believe” them, “promote and defend” them, and conform not only their teaching but their “serving” and “living” to them. This language is not a new development of synod, nor is it the ethics of a post HSR environment. It is the affirmation of what officers of the church were always, officially, expected to be.
In addition, Point 8, “Acknowledge and Respect Conscientious Objections” says:
Synod 2022 did not make the HSR a part of the Creeds and Confessions. However, in a response to officers rejecting the official and undisputed teaching of the CRC affirmed by synodical statements from 1973, 2002, and 2016, synod 2022 defined the word “unchastity” in Heidelberg Catechism Q.108 in accordance with the historic, Reformed hermeneutics of scripture. The “specific interpretation of sexuality” that is actually confessional is the one that has, for almost 3,500 years, been written and preserved by God for God’s people in the words of the prophets and apostles. If potential officers “love Scripture, the Reformed confessions, and the church” (pt. 8), then the body of what we believe, teach, promote, and defend is not dependent on the Reformed confessions but on the scripture which these officers love.
Being honest with our potential officebearers gives the church elders and deacons who can honestly and wholeheartedly serve God’s people in the CRC, and promote the gospel, justice, and equity effectively to people we evangelize and disciple. Giving incomplete expectations to our potential officebearers will neither love God, the church, or those we proclaim the gospel to.
Posted in: Sermon Resources: Preaching on the Topic of Domestic Violence
I ask the Safe Church Ministry, carefully and respectfully, to please, please reconsider this “sermon” list.
If we are the Church that admits with Jesus (and the Prophets and Apostles) that the Word of God is the gift that washes, redeems, and transforms us, then we can agree that an overwhelming number of these messages are not “sermons.” Many of them simply deny the inspiration of scripture – the first in the list being the most offensive (yet). Others pay little or no attention to The Word of God at all. Few have any Good News of Christ’s sacrificial redemption by faith. These may be speeches, or even timely cries from the heart, but they are not “sermons.” Many of these messages are not able to be preached by pastors who not only know Christ, but have signed The Covenant of Officebearers promising their teaching and preaching be in alignment with The Word as well as our Creeds and Confessions.
I am with you in admitting that addressing this very topic from the pulpit is necessary. But as Christians, we must do it as Christians, and that means being bought and formed by The Word God sent to us. That means being taught, reproved, corrected and trained for righteousness by that Word – not standing in place of God by correcting and reproving The Word. The hope and healing we and our congregations need will not come when we deny The Word and Spirit God has given us for that exact work.
Posted in: Sermon Resources: Preaching on the Topic of Domestic Violence
Thanks, Amanda. I appreciate much of what you said here. Unfortunately, none of what you wrote was included in the recommendation in this post. In fact, the post recommended these messages as if they are in line with, or a continuation of, the CRC’s work in addressing abuse and violence with the same attention to being Christians finding Christian hope and solutions until Jesus returns. Unfortunately, as an organization, Sojourners cannot be relied on to provide specifically Christian hope and solutions.
I am all for reading “outside our own tradition” (I wasn’t raised Christian, much less CRC) and I do it all the time. However, we need to be honest about it. It only leads to more questions and confusion when a CRC ministry recommends “sermons” without any of the disclaimer you responded with. As a pastor, I am desperately trying to help the people God has given into my care and orbit see the difference between what is of Christ and what is anti-Christ – and to run toward Christ. Maybe because of this work I hope to have more support from the denomination, but assumptions and/or poor recommendations from a denominational ministry doesn’t help a pastor’s work. Perhaps amending the post would provide a more honest reason for why these messages were recommended, and what there usefulness may or may not be.
Posted in: Sermon Resources: Preaching on the Topic of Domestic Violence
I respectfully ask again for the Safe Church ministry to reconsider this list of messages provided by Sojourners. More specifically, to remove at least the 6 Unitarian Universalist messages from the “sermons” listed. If those specific messages cannot be removed from this list, then I ask that the Safe Church ministry provide a disclaimer on this page explaining that many of these examples of preaching, which this denominational ministry still recommends as “resources on how to preach on the topic of domestic violence” are anti-Christian and do not proclaim a scriptural Christ.
Certainly the Safe Church ministry can agree that recommending preaching that addresses injustice without any appeal to the gospel of Christ crucifying our sin and resurrecting the faithful to new life will hinder the goals of awareness, healing, and transformation this ministry aims to promote. Certainly the Safe Church ministry can agree that the Christian Reformed Church needs to be clear about the gospel and the true means of grace, healing and justice on Earth.
With respect to Christ and the hope of this denominational ministry, please remove – or at least properly identify – the anti-Christian messages provided on this page.
Posted in: Sermon Resources: Preaching on the Topic of Domestic Violence
Thank you for posting the disclaimer! This gets me wondering: Why Sojourners? If SoJo has such a hard time discerning a Biblical sermons from unBiblical (or anti-Biblical, even), maybe there’s a better source? I’d be more than willing to take time to help you find some, or contribute my own before throwing up a grab bag of messages that may or may not help the Church.
Posted in: The Ideology of Whiteness Workshop
Thanks for posting, Viviana. I have a few of questions. This looks to be self-guided; is there help from a facilitator or ministry leader? What is the objective of the workshop? What curriculum is being used? Is there a biblical theme/narrative/premise that this workshop is based on? Sorry, but I’m not seeing a lot of information on what this really is, and for $85.00 I’d like to know. Thanks!
Posted in: February Is Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Month (TDVAM)
Seriously, this link needs to be taken down. I can’t show this to my youth group leaders, much less my church’s kids – and certainly not my daughter.
I see you're taking requests for better information I'll happily take some time and post those things here, and also as a separate article on the Network to correct this link if it's not taken down.
Posted in: Apest: We Need It for Full-Orbed Jesus-Incarnating Ministry
Now I have more reading to do. Thanks, Ben. This sounds like an interesting categorization of ministry, especially in light of the Great Commission: The “what” has to have a “how.”
Posted in: Who's Ecclesiastical Authority Is an Interfaith Minister Responsible To?
What person or official body would do the ‘licensing’ and ‘ordaining’? I think that answers your question.
...not to mention the fact that they’d be accountable to God for the gospel, so there’s really no such thing as an ‘interfaith’ minister.
Posted in: Can unity be established under constraint?
This is a curious statement. I believe the Church did make large strides under a Roman government which codified slavery in various ways, as well as considering The Way to be an ‘outlaw’ religion. Certainly believing slaves in Philippi and believers within “Caesar’s household” [Phil. 4.22] were not considered “equals” under the law of Rome – and yet they aknowledged each other (perhaps secretly!) as brothers and sisters in Christ. This is the miracle and the power of hearts won out of a fallen world by the Holy Spirit. The Gospel of a resurrected Christ transcends barriers that humans erect against it.
So, are the premises of the Belhar faulty? In which ways? If we answer “yes”, then we need to examine ourselves to see on what level we can – or cannot – “confess” a not-quite-so–exact document.
Posted in: Any research on the relationship between worship and evangelism?
I believe there is a DEEP connection, but I have no definite sources to provide (yet). I'd like to see if this thread goes anywhere.
Posted in: Fear, Flukes & Critical Race Theory
The author seems not to be aware that CRT has different definitions and outworkings, despite quoting the ABA. Nor does the author understand the difference between political enemies and differences among brothers and sisters in the Church regarding the scope and purpose of confessions. Understanding these differences and working with them would go much farther with more constructive solutions for the Church.