Hi Lloyd. Lots of wisdom there from Professor Murray. I will push back against your characterization that "our default appears more often, to be doing nothing." I don't think you can rightly make that judgment, and Professor Murray seems to disagree substantially with you in the article that you posted:
"Fifth, many (I hope most) churches do the right thing. We only hear of the bad examples and the media only expose the cover-ups (as they should). However, there are many Christians who bravely and courageously stand up against evil and protect the innocent."
The answer to concerns about abuse cover-up is not to broadly impugn our brothers and sisters in Christ without warrant, lest we fall into sin ourselves by breaking the ninth commandment.
Hi Roger. I think you made the initial error of assuming that Kelly was the name of a woman and that the picture attached to the account was intended to illustrate Kelly as the female in the picture. In actuality, it appears as though Kelly is the man that you are talking to, and he is in the picture as well (to the rear). It appears as though Kelly is married to Willemina Zwart, who is not only his wife, but is also his pastor. So, carry on your conversation with Kelly the man. :)
The CRC's approach in this arena is nothing less than simply parroting and following the world's conversation. It is sad to see the divisiveness promoted by denominational employees in the name of reconciliation. Coates' writing is filled with thinly veiled hatred. That the CRC's "race relations" director would affirmatively quote Coates from his latest divisive screed (which he has) is a sad commentary on denominational approach to this conversation. The notion of "race relations" is an incoherent concept in itself, as races can't have relationships - only people have relationships. Continuously separating the body of Christ into competing groups with lists of grievances is antithetical to the concept of reconciliation. Removing a persons individuality and personal culpability (or lack thereof) in favor of identity and group politics is the way of the world, not the way of the unified body of Christ. Would that we would eschew any and all worldly religions (including the religion of antiracism with all of its corrosive effects) in favor of the simplicity of the gospel. I refuse to be pitted against people I have never met and told to reconcile with people with whom I am not in a state of enmity.
I second Doug's "amen". Teaching children truisms and trite morality lessons will not equip them to grab hold of the promises sealed to them in baptism, nor will it teach them to understand/handle scripture correctly. Children are often so much more ready and able to understand and internalize deep and meaningful truths than they are given credit for. If we expect little from our children, we will get exactly what we expect. The great commission starts at home and in the church and blossoms outward from there. Karen, thank you for posting this.
I hope you are well. I see you must have been doing a lot of reading lately, and your thoughts on various topics are most welcome. Sometimes when topics have grown stale, re-igniting the conversation can be difficult.
I'd like to hear more of your story, Ken, and would love to be in communication with you if that is something that would be uplifting in your life. Please feel free to email me at [email protected] if you would like to be in conversation. Thanks for your contributions, and may God bless you as you seek to flourish under his sovereign care.
A curious phenomenon is occurring in the CRC and more broadly in the N.A. church. Namely, we see simultaneously the relativizing of moral commands in the Bible and absolutizing of man-made commands. More and more we hear calls for "unity amidst diversity" on how to read and apply specific moral prohibitions in scripture. Yet, the generalized command to "love neighbor" is made to be specific and absolute to the ways in which certain people choose to love. So we see here (and loads of other places) that people are told that if they do not love in the way that certain people (or classes/groups of people) love, then they are not showing love. "If you chose not to get a vaccine, you are not showing love". Yet, of course, the Bible makes no such specific claim. What happened to unity amidst diversity? Unity is not encouraged by the pharisaical approach of layering man-made laws upon God's moral laws and demanding adherence, lest one be shunned. We see the same in other areas, particularly of progressive fascination. If you don't advocate for certain immigration policies that I prefer, you are not welcoming and loving. If you don't advocate for certain environmental policies that I have baptized, you are not loving your neighbor. If you do not make certain lifestyle choices as I do, you are not loving your neighbor. If you don't support this certain advocacy group, cultural slogan, or academic fad, you are not loving your neighbor. The list can be multiplied. It is particularly hard medicine to take such moral pronouncements from those who cast doubt upon numerous of God's moral commands that are out of vogue in modern culture. Again, I struggle to see how such moral judgments will promote unity in the church.
I've comfortably received my vaccine at the earliest opportunity. I hate needles (at least the ones aimed at me) and my body reacts such that I faint when getting shots, but I was happy to receive protection and at peace that I would be less likely to sicken someone else. When asked, I have counseled others in the wisdom of receiving a vaccination. But may God deal with me, be it ever so severely, if I stand at the door of the church as an elder and bar God's people from worship or service in the church based upon their unwillingness to make all the same judgments and balance factors just as I have on matters never dictated in God's word in any direct or necessary way. If we can and should make such extra-biblical demands in the name of absolute physical safety, then I would posit that there is no level of control that we cannot justify under that rubric.
I think Cedric is quite correct that the normative principle is much more common in practice, or perhaps one might say that a "modified RPW" is quite common. Even within adherents to RPW, there is substantial disagreement as to what boundaries might be a necessary conclusion. In some circles, head coverings, exclusive psalmody, and a capella singing are all the result of being normed by RPW. RPW can also become an end unto itself sometimes, which is not helpful. We need to be careful also that RPW does not become shorthand for "what I prefer" or "the way we've always done it."
Having said all that, I think much is lost when the RPW is discarded altogether. The normative principle, it seems to me, has led to many broad evangelical practices/excesses that do not even resemble worship (unless we consider them worship of man). Certainly there is danger in the rote exercise of RPW-normed worship that we must be vigilant to fight against. But it seems to me that the dangers associated with throwing the doors open to anything not expressly prohibited are much greater than those associated with the excesses or ritualism that can come with RPW.
In the end, I also agree with Cedric that we should, in effect, "say what we mean, and mean what we say." We don't do well to profess one thing and practice another. Such double-mindedness is not pleasing to God.
Raffle: a lottery in which the prize is won by one of numerous persons buying chances.
Gamble: to play a game for money or property; to bet on an uncertain outcome; to stake something on a contingency.
To the extent that raffles seem to fall squarely within a standard dictionary definition of gambling, the CRCNA position on gambling seems apropos:
Pastors and church councils are urged to expose all destructive influences on people's lives that seek to trivialize or render irrelevant the providence of God. They must also caution against the impact of materialism, take decisive action to combat the evil of gambling, and minister compassionately to persons addicted to or victimized by lotteries.
Posted in: Why Do Churches Cover Up Sin?
Hi Lloyd. Lots of wisdom there from Professor Murray. I will push back against your characterization that "our default appears more often, to be doing nothing." I don't think you can rightly make that judgment, and Professor Murray seems to disagree substantially with you in the article that you posted:
"Fifth, many (I hope most) churches do the right thing. We only hear of the bad examples and the media only expose the cover-ups (as they should). However, there are many Christians who bravely and courageously stand up against evil and protect the innocent."
The answer to concerns about abuse cover-up is not to broadly impugn our brothers and sisters in Christ without warrant, lest we fall into sin ourselves by breaking the ninth commandment.
Posted in: Rain: a Novel About Infertility
Congratulations, Tim!
Eric Van Dyken
Dordt 1993
Posted in: S.O.S. Sexual Assault at a Retreat by Clergy
Hi Roger. I think you made the initial error of assuming that Kelly was the name of a woman and that the picture attached to the account was intended to illustrate Kelly as the female in the picture. In actuality, it appears as though Kelly is the man that you are talking to, and he is in the picture as well (to the rear). It appears as though Kelly is married to Willemina Zwart, who is not only his wife, but is also his pastor. So, carry on your conversation with Kelly the man. :)
Posted in: Talking About Privilege and Justice With Kids
The CRC's approach in this arena is nothing less than simply parroting and following the world's conversation. It is sad to see the divisiveness promoted by denominational employees in the name of reconciliation. Coates' writing is filled with thinly veiled hatred. That the CRC's "race relations" director would affirmatively quote Coates from his latest divisive screed (which he has) is a sad commentary on denominational approach to this conversation. The notion of "race relations" is an incoherent concept in itself, as races can't have relationships - only people have relationships. Continuously separating the body of Christ into competing groups with lists of grievances is antithetical to the concept of reconciliation. Removing a persons individuality and personal culpability (or lack thereof) in favor of identity and group politics is the way of the world, not the way of the unified body of Christ. Would that we would eschew any and all worldly religions (including the religion of antiracism with all of its corrosive effects) in favor of the simplicity of the gospel. I refuse to be pitted against people I have never met and told to reconcile with people with whom I am not in a state of enmity.
Posted in: Every Pastor in the CRC Should Hear This
I second Doug's "amen". Teaching children truisms and trite morality lessons will not equip them to grab hold of the promises sealed to them in baptism, nor will it teach them to understand/handle scripture correctly. Children are often so much more ready and able to understand and internalize deep and meaningful truths than they are given credit for. If we expect little from our children, we will get exactly what we expect. The great commission starts at home and in the church and blossoms outward from there. Karen, thank you for posting this.
Posted in: Listening Prayer Webinar
"Prayer is not about us doing all the talking, but engaging in relational dialog with God."
Mary, can you support this statement from the Bible?
When Jesus taught us to pray, did he speak and tell us to speak, or did he instruct us to listen?
Can you provide a Biblical of example of prayer as listening?
Posted in: Communicating Effectively With People Who Have a Disability
Hi Ken,
I hope you are well. I see you must have been doing a lot of reading lately, and your thoughts on various topics are most welcome. Sometimes when topics have grown stale, re-igniting the conversation can be difficult.
I'd like to hear more of your story, Ken, and would love to be in communication with you if that is something that would be uplifting in your life. Please feel free to email me at [email protected] if you would like to be in conversation. Thanks for your contributions, and may God bless you as you seek to flourish under his sovereign care.
In Christ,
Eric
Posted in: Our Confessional Crisis
Hi Case,
Thank you for offering your voice - it is needed and valuable.
Posted in: Vaccination Status of Church Volunteers?
A curious phenomenon is occurring in the CRC and more broadly in the N.A. church. Namely, we see simultaneously the relativizing of moral commands in the Bible and absolutizing of man-made commands. More and more we hear calls for "unity amidst diversity" on how to read and apply specific moral prohibitions in scripture. Yet, the generalized command to "love neighbor" is made to be specific and absolute to the ways in which certain people choose to love. So we see here (and loads of other places) that people are told that if they do not love in the way that certain people (or classes/groups of people) love, then they are not showing love. "If you chose not to get a vaccine, you are not showing love". Yet, of course, the Bible makes no such specific claim. What happened to unity amidst diversity? Unity is not encouraged by the pharisaical approach of layering man-made laws upon God's moral laws and demanding adherence, lest one be shunned. We see the same in other areas, particularly of progressive fascination. If you don't advocate for certain immigration policies that I prefer, you are not welcoming and loving. If you don't advocate for certain environmental policies that I have baptized, you are not loving your neighbor. If you do not make certain lifestyle choices as I do, you are not loving your neighbor. If you don't support this certain advocacy group, cultural slogan, or academic fad, you are not loving your neighbor. The list can be multiplied. It is particularly hard medicine to take such moral pronouncements from those who cast doubt upon numerous of God's moral commands that are out of vogue in modern culture. Again, I struggle to see how such moral judgments will promote unity in the church.
I've comfortably received my vaccine at the earliest opportunity. I hate needles (at least the ones aimed at me) and my body reacts such that I faint when getting shots, but I was happy to receive protection and at peace that I would be less likely to sicken someone else. When asked, I have counseled others in the wisdom of receiving a vaccination. But may God deal with me, be it ever so severely, if I stand at the door of the church as an elder and bar God's people from worship or service in the church based upon their unwillingness to make all the same judgments and balance factors just as I have on matters never dictated in God's word in any direct or necessary way. If we can and should make such extra-biblical demands in the name of absolute physical safety, then I would posit that there is no level of control that we cannot justify under that rubric.
Posted in: How Does the 'Regulative Principle' Inform Worship?
I think Cedric is quite correct that the normative principle is much more common in practice, or perhaps one might say that a "modified RPW" is quite common. Even within adherents to RPW, there is substantial disagreement as to what boundaries might be a necessary conclusion. In some circles, head coverings, exclusive psalmody, and a capella singing are all the result of being normed by RPW. RPW can also become an end unto itself sometimes, which is not helpful. We need to be careful also that RPW does not become shorthand for "what I prefer" or "the way we've always done it."
Having said all that, I think much is lost when the RPW is discarded altogether. The normative principle, it seems to me, has led to many broad evangelical practices/excesses that do not even resemble worship (unless we consider them worship of man). Certainly there is danger in the rote exercise of RPW-normed worship that we must be vigilant to fight against. But it seems to me that the dangers associated with throwing the doors open to anything not expressly prohibited are much greater than those associated with the excesses or ritualism that can come with RPW.
In the end, I also agree with Cedric that we should, in effect, "say what we mean, and mean what we say." We don't do well to profess one thing and practice another. Such double-mindedness is not pleasing to God.
Posted in: Church Position on Fundraising/Raffles?
Hi Jim,
Following are a few standard definitions:
Raffle: a lottery in which the prize is won by one of numerous persons buying chances.
Gamble: to play a game for money or property; to bet on an uncertain outcome; to stake something on a contingency.
To the extent that raffles seem to fall squarely within a standard dictionary definition of gambling, the CRCNA position on gambling seems apropos:
Pastors and church councils are urged to expose all destructive influences on people's lives that seek to trivialize or render irrelevant the providence of God. They must also caution against the impact of materialism, take decisive action to combat the evil of gambling, and minister compassionately to persons addicted to or victimized by lotteries.
That statement and some synodical history can be found here: https://www.crcna.org/welcome/beliefs/position-statements/gambling
Posted in: Opinions on "Jesus Calling" by Sarah Young
Tim Challies provides a thought-provoking critique here: https://www.challies.com/articles/10-serious-problems-with-jesus-calling/
I am unaware of any CRC position, and find it unlikely that the CRC would have formulated an institutional position on this book.