I think you've hit on something very important when you say that "we, in the CRC, need to figure out how to work through conflict when we disagree on non-essential matters". First, I wholeheartedly agree that we need to be able to disagree, even forcefully, while simultaneously loving and serving each other. Those two ideas are not antithetical. Second, I would say that on a great many issues this is already occurring within the CRC and the broader reformed tradition. There are many things that we don't see the same, yet we commune together, worship together, pray together, etc., as God would have us in unity. Third, what you see here in the comment section is actually "working through conflict", so we can be thankful for that. Fourth, the whole point of this discussion thread is to point out that we don't "work through conflict when we disagree on non-essential matters" by seeking to bind the conscience of our brothers and sisters in Christ on matters which are not dictated in God's Word. To seek to have certain political, social, environmental and economic positions (not dictated by Scripture) enshrined by Synod is a form of lording it over brothers and sisters in Christ. The beauty and wisdom of CO Article 28 is partly that it should be (if we honored it) keeping us from having synodical wrangling over pronouncements regarding the foreign and domestic policy of a U.S. ally seeking to deal with a contentious neighboring region wherein reside a host of people who consistently call for its annihilation. There is simply no reason why members of the CRC cannot and should not (in fact, we have and do!) live together in harmony with differing views on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Nothing at all is served by seeking to synodically baptize one particular viewpoint on a matter so complicated that is not Biblically mandated in any way.
On a smaller scale A1B its ally churches have already successfully pulled this off, resulting in the normalization and acceptance of promotion of sin and false doctrine in the church. Churches regularly invite in speakers to undermine the teaching of the church, to impugn the Bible, and to promote sin, all with no accountability within the broader church. Consider for a moment whether or not the church would tolerate any other sin-advocacy group in her midst. How about a Society for the Promotion of Greed? Or perhaps a Hate Inclusion Club? I happen to be prone to both of those sins, among many others. Sound ridiculous? Certainly so, but no more ridiculous than the continued persistence and acceptance of a group within the church who are allowed to openly and unrepentantly call people into sin. And Synod (being dutifully obedient to church order "experts") deliberately has stonewalled any attempt at accountability on this matter. Synod was even unwilling to say that encouraging and promoting others to sin is itself sinful. Dan, we don't have to imagine this happening - it has happened and is happening as we speak.
I think something really gets lost when "women in leadership" is equated with "women in ecclesiastical office". The two are not the same, yet I think in the church too often we use the first as shorthand for the second. This is unhelpful. One thing it does is paints churches who hold to the historically orthodox position on women in ecclesiastical office as against the use and appreciation of women's gifts in the life of the church. Such could not be further from the truth.
I am very supportive of women in leadership. There are a plethora of ways in which women can and do have leadership roles in the life of the church without ever holding ecclesiastical office. I have observed and celebrated it all my life.
The CRC has placed itself in an awkward position. It has decreed that two exclusive positions are both correct. One would suppose that such an incoherent position would only be able to survive in the long term if both positions were allowed to exist side-by-side with impartiality. Yet such has not been the case. The CRC puts its institutional weight behind egalitarianism while marginalizing complementarianism. For example we have the denominational ministry called Women's Ministry which states explicitly "We affirm and support women in all levels of leadership." This ministry then uses denominational resources and platforms to promote teachings and practices at the expense of the other position that the denomination ostensibly holds as "a" biblical position. We also see practices at synod that are not only inconsiderate by also seem to be designed to purposely marginalize complementarians and affirmatively violate their consciences.
It is hard to see this pattern leading to greater denominational unity or cohesiveness over time. In fact, it seems almost designed to either "convert" or drive out a portion of the church so that over time one position is normalized while the other position is marginalized to the point of being considered unacceptable. Perhaps this was inevitable given the logical incoherence of a position that says that "A" and "Not A" are both true.
Denise, more directly to your question, my main approach is one of prayer and encouragement. I'm not much for programs and such as much as I am the individual deliberative practice of love. Loving each other in the church, when considered in its full-orbed scope, leads us to recognize and encourage the use of gifts in those around us. This is probably most easily and widely practiced in/with those that we are closest to, but should not be limited to that.
My wife happens to be better at some aspects of leadership than I am (particularly in organization), so she not only leads but also helps me when I am called to lead. My wife currently fills roles as Classical Treasurer, Youth Group Coordinator, Minn-I-Kota Youth Network Board Member, pianist, and Sunday School teacher among other roles outside of church. As a husband, but also as a brother in Christ, I am called to encourage and support her in these roles as she uses her gifts to glorify God.
No. Unequivocally no. And it should not simply be a question of "who's ox is being gored". I am opposed to church mission creep whether the church is playing in my end of the pool or the other end. As you so rightly point out, when we covenant together, it must mean something. The division being caused right now in the body of Christ (and it is real and damaging) is because we bear false witness that we intend to do something that we do not have the will to abide by. Shame on us for our duplicity as a denomination.
Izaak, to answer your question, I'll simply quote Roger from another forum:
"Although my background is Reformed, my present position would come much closer to deism, which is a belief in the existence of God based on the evidence of reason and nature, with a rejection of supernatural revelations such as the Koran, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Jewish Scriptures and all other so called supernatural revelations."
Roger is still listed as a Minister of the Word in the CRC but rejects the Bible.
I am always glad to hear your opinion, though I don't think you and I have been interacting to this point. I have indeed stated my opinion of that document quite clearly, and for that I make no apology. Better to be clear than to equivocate. That does not mean that you are not encouraged to also state your opinion. As to the document that I linked, I have nothing but mockery and disdain for it, and will further argue that it represents a nadir of foolishness and silly thinking. I see no reason to take it seriously. That's strong language, to be sure, but I doubt that you would want me to be squishy or unclear.
Are there principles embedded therein that can be useful? I have no doubt that there are, but I find their presence in the document utterly unredemptive for the document as a whole. If you are recruiting help to mock some other proposal that you feel is worthy to be mocked, by all means make your pitch. Mockery has its place when considering certain proposals.
There is plenty of room generally for Christians to give each other latitude in this broad matter. I much prefer the approach of Dr. Judith Curry, which I find balanced and less prone to overreaction that many other approaches. An example of her measured approach can be seen in her testimony here: https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Curry%20Testimony%20House%20Natural%20Resources.pdf I'm not particularly interested in parsing her testimony here, as I don't think we will accomplish anything by that. I simply post as an example of what I believe is a reasonable approach. As a government-employed scientist, I can tell you that I have read more than my share of SONARs (Statement Of Need And Resonableness), and can confidently say that the science behind legislation is not immune to being stretched, cherry-picked, manipulated, and misrepresented.
I would be interested to see one straight-forward attempt to answer Doug’s continual question regarding Church Order Article 28 and the proper activities of the institutional church. The pertinent language of Article 28 is as follows: “These assemblies [council, classis, & synod] shall transact ecclesiastical matters only, and shall deal with them in an ecclesiastical manner.”
We can argue until we are blue in the face about carbon taxes, green new deals, capitalism vs. socialism, nuclear power, etc., and that is all well and fine. But in the end, as individual Christians we make decisions based on our conscience as informed by God’s Word. And there simply is no straight line from God’s Word to the complexities of 21st century energy and economic policy, no matter how hard you try. There is no way to argue that a certain position on a national carbon tax is an “ecclesiastical matter” without stretching the definition of ecclesiastical until it has no meaning whatsoever. If everything with a moral component is an ecclesiastical matter then there is no end to what can be made to be ecclesiastical. If everything is ecclesiastical, then nothing is. If we are to have common ground, we must have a common language, and that language has to mean something. Are we so double minded (James 4:8) that to say one thing and then do another is perfectly acceptable to us? Or are those who hold the power in the church’s institutions and agencies indifferent as long as their ox is not being gored?
What happened to Christians respecting each other’s consciences in matters such as this? Why must Christians take the reins of power and co-opt the name and resources of others to advance their preferred political agenda? What is to stop these brothers and sisters from pressing their claims through YECA, EEN, Sojourners, 350.org, or any number of other organizations of like-minded individuals, whether Christian or not? How are we to understand the continual, obvious, and divisive politicking of the church except as a display of arrogance and disregard in the face of brothers and sisters who differ?
I'm familiar with that material, as well as DeMoor's commentary. I guess what I was more looking for was some proponent of the type of lobbying that Doug here decries to interact with Doug's question about the institutional church transacting ecclesiastical matters only. I am interested to see someone who favors this type of activity in the church grapple honestly and more than surficially with our covenantal language.
The closest I've seen in this thread is Tom Ackerman's quote: "I disagree with your statements about the role of the church on issues of social justice, including global warming. There is no stronger message in the Bible than our requirement as God's people to seek justice and to love mercy. Laying waste to our environment is neither just nor merciful."
A couple of observations:
1) Tom does not in this argument establish that lobbying for a carbon tax is an ecclesiastical matter, except to establish his belief that it relates to justice an mercy. But of course, every aspect of life relates to justice and mercy in one fashion or another, but that does not maker every matter in life ecclesiastical (of or relating to a church especially as an established institution).
2) There are indeed stronger messages in the Bible than our requirement (law) to seek justice and love mercy. Grace always overwhelms law in the Christian gospel, so it simply will not do to posit law as the dominant theme of the Bible.
3) In this quote Tom illustrates the cardinal sin of environmentalism, that of hyperbolic pronouncement. Later in the thread Tom objects to the use of the term "alarmist". But the word is used for a reason, and the history of alarming exaggeration within environmentalism is long and illustrious, whether the name be Ehrlich, Gore, Hayhoe, McKibben, or some politician pandering for votes through fear. The idiom "lay waste" is defined in one place as "to devastate; destroy; ruin", which is typical of its common usage. The idea that humanity is somehow devastating, destroying, or ruining "our environment" is the the type of apocalyptic language that is so detached from reality that the purveyor of such fearful language drives people into two disparate camps: First, true believers, who begin to speak and act in more and more irrational ways (see Green New Deal language) due to exaggerated fears. Second, those who are driven away by the hyperbole and flee to the opposite end of the spectrum, and often in so doing also discount realistic concerns. So the use of such hyperbole is quite counterproductive, and it continues to be the Achilles heel of the environmental movement, both within and without Christianity.
Hilarious. Absolutely hilarious. Like it was written by a sixth grader or Miss Universe contestant asked how they intend to save the planet.
But in many ways it is not funny at all, because actual elected legislators think this is sound thinking. Best quote, perhaps: The Green New Deal will guarantee "Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work."
What a wonderful offering! You have spoken true and comforting words which impacted me intellectually and emotionally. May God continue to bless you with peace and assurance.
I agree, Lloyd. I don't think that the first impulse should be to change the language of the church as much as we should redouble our efforts to train and disciple using the language of the church. There are many terms of the church that are "old" and not always understood by all, but I would offer that is not because our people *cannot* understand them, but perhaps more that the church has not always taken the opportunity to embrace and promote the language of the church.
When I hear the questioner above say that some of the younger members don't know what benevolence means, I hear an opportunity for the deacons to send a couple representatives each year to the youth group to explain the work of the deacons, including the work of benevolence. What a joyful opportunity to connect with the youth!
Posted in: ‘Palestine’ and Overture 6: Ten Questions to Consider
Hi Bev,
I think you've hit on something very important when you say that "we, in the CRC, need to figure out how to work through conflict when we disagree on non-essential matters". First, I wholeheartedly agree that we need to be able to disagree, even forcefully, while simultaneously loving and serving each other. Those two ideas are not antithetical. Second, I would say that on a great many issues this is already occurring within the CRC and the broader reformed tradition. There are many things that we don't see the same, yet we commune together, worship together, pray together, etc., as God would have us in unity. Third, what you see here in the comment section is actually "working through conflict", so we can be thankful for that. Fourth, the whole point of this discussion thread is to point out that we don't "work through conflict when we disagree on non-essential matters" by seeking to bind the conscience of our brothers and sisters in Christ on matters which are not dictated in God's Word. To seek to have certain political, social, environmental and economic positions (not dictated by Scripture) enshrined by Synod is a form of lording it over brothers and sisters in Christ. The beauty and wisdom of CO Article 28 is partly that it should be (if we honored it) keeping us from having synodical wrangling over pronouncements regarding the foreign and domestic policy of a U.S. ally seeking to deal with a contentious neighboring region wherein reside a host of people who consistently call for its annihilation. There is simply no reason why members of the CRC cannot and should not (in fact, we have and do!) live together in harmony with differing views on the Palestinian/Israeli conflict. Nothing at all is served by seeking to synodically baptize one particular viewpoint on a matter so complicated that is not Biblically mandated in any way.
Posted in: The CRC and LGBTQ - Part 2
On a smaller scale A1B its ally churches have already successfully pulled this off, resulting in the normalization and acceptance of promotion of sin and false doctrine in the church. Churches regularly invite in speakers to undermine the teaching of the church, to impugn the Bible, and to promote sin, all with no accountability within the broader church. Consider for a moment whether or not the church would tolerate any other sin-advocacy group in her midst. How about a Society for the Promotion of Greed? Or perhaps a Hate Inclusion Club? I happen to be prone to both of those sins, among many others. Sound ridiculous? Certainly so, but no more ridiculous than the continued persistence and acceptance of a group within the church who are allowed to openly and unrepentantly call people into sin. And Synod (being dutifully obedient to church order "experts") deliberately has stonewalled any attempt at accountability on this matter. Synod was even unwilling to say that encouraging and promoting others to sin is itself sinful. Dan, we don't have to imagine this happening - it has happened and is happening as we speak.
Posted in: What Ways Are You Supporting Women in Leadership?
I think something really gets lost when "women in leadership" is equated with "women in ecclesiastical office". The two are not the same, yet I think in the church too often we use the first as shorthand for the second. This is unhelpful. One thing it does is paints churches who hold to the historically orthodox position on women in ecclesiastical office as against the use and appreciation of women's gifts in the life of the church. Such could not be further from the truth.
I am very supportive of women in leadership. There are a plethora of ways in which women can and do have leadership roles in the life of the church without ever holding ecclesiastical office. I have observed and celebrated it all my life.
The CRC has placed itself in an awkward position. It has decreed that two exclusive positions are both correct. One would suppose that such an incoherent position would only be able to survive in the long term if both positions were allowed to exist side-by-side with impartiality. Yet such has not been the case. The CRC puts its institutional weight behind egalitarianism while marginalizing complementarianism. For example we have the denominational ministry called Women's Ministry which states explicitly "We affirm and support women in all levels of leadership." This ministry then uses denominational resources and platforms to promote teachings and practices at the expense of the other position that the denomination ostensibly holds as "a" biblical position. We also see practices at synod that are not only inconsiderate by also seem to be designed to purposely marginalize complementarians and affirmatively violate their consciences.
It is hard to see this pattern leading to greater denominational unity or cohesiveness over time. In fact, it seems almost designed to either "convert" or drive out a portion of the church so that over time one position is normalized while the other position is marginalized to the point of being considered unacceptable. Perhaps this was inevitable given the logical incoherence of a position that says that "A" and "Not A" are both true.
Posted in: What Ways Are You Supporting Women in Leadership?
Denise, more directly to your question, my main approach is one of prayer and encouragement. I'm not much for programs and such as much as I am the individual deliberative practice of love. Loving each other in the church, when considered in its full-orbed scope, leads us to recognize and encourage the use of gifts in those around us. This is probably most easily and widely practiced in/with those that we are closest to, but should not be limited to that.
My wife happens to be better at some aspects of leadership than I am (particularly in organization), so she not only leads but also helps me when I am called to lead. My wife currently fills roles as Classical Treasurer, Youth Group Coordinator, Minn-I-Kota Youth Network Board Member, pianist, and Sunday School teacher among other roles outside of church. As a husband, but also as a brother in Christ, I am called to encourage and support her in these roles as she uses her gifts to glorify God.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
No. Unequivocally no. And it should not simply be a question of "who's ox is being gored". I am opposed to church mission creep whether the church is playing in my end of the pool or the other end. As you so rightly point out, when we covenant together, it must mean something. The division being caused right now in the body of Christ (and it is real and damaging) is because we bear false witness that we intend to do something that we do not have the will to abide by. Shame on us for our duplicity as a denomination.
Posted in: Where Are the Evangelicals?
Izaak, to answer your question, I'll simply quote Roger from another forum:
"Although my background is Reformed, my present position would come much closer to deism, which is a belief in the existence of God based on the evidence of reason and nature, with a rejection of supernatural revelations such as the Koran, the Bible, the Book of Mormon, the Jewish Scriptures and all other so called supernatural revelations."
Roger is still listed as a Minister of the Word in the CRC but rejects the Bible.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Hi Tom,
I am always glad to hear your opinion, though I don't think you and I have been interacting to this point. I have indeed stated my opinion of that document quite clearly, and for that I make no apology. Better to be clear than to equivocate. That does not mean that you are not encouraged to also state your opinion. As to the document that I linked, I have nothing but mockery and disdain for it, and will further argue that it represents a nadir of foolishness and silly thinking. I see no reason to take it seriously. That's strong language, to be sure, but I doubt that you would want me to be squishy or unclear.
Are there principles embedded therein that can be useful? I have no doubt that there are, but I find their presence in the document utterly unredemptive for the document as a whole. If you are recruiting help to mock some other proposal that you feel is worthy to be mocked, by all means make your pitch. Mockery has its place when considering certain proposals.
There is plenty of room generally for Christians to give each other latitude in this broad matter. I much prefer the approach of Dr. Judith Curry, which I find balanced and less prone to overreaction that many other approaches. An example of her measured approach can be seen in her testimony here: https://naturalresources.house.gov/imo/media/doc/Curry%20Testimony%20House%20Natural%20Resources.pdf I'm not particularly interested in parsing her testimony here, as I don't think we will accomplish anything by that. I simply post as an example of what I believe is a reasonable approach. As a government-employed scientist, I can tell you that I have read more than my share of SONARs (Statement Of Need And Resonableness), and can confidently say that the science behind legislation is not immune to being stretched, cherry-picked, manipulated, and misrepresented.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
I would be interested to see one straight-forward attempt to answer Doug’s continual question regarding Church Order Article 28 and the proper activities of the institutional church. The pertinent language of Article 28 is as follows: “These assemblies [council, classis, & synod] shall transact ecclesiastical matters only, and shall deal with them in an ecclesiastical manner.”
We can argue until we are blue in the face about carbon taxes, green new deals, capitalism vs. socialism, nuclear power, etc., and that is all well and fine. But in the end, as individual Christians we make decisions based on our conscience as informed by God’s Word. And there simply is no straight line from God’s Word to the complexities of 21st century energy and economic policy, no matter how hard you try. There is no way to argue that a certain position on a national carbon tax is an “ecclesiastical matter” without stretching the definition of ecclesiastical until it has no meaning whatsoever. If everything with a moral component is an ecclesiastical matter then there is no end to what can be made to be ecclesiastical. If everything is ecclesiastical, then nothing is. If we are to have common ground, we must have a common language, and that language has to mean something. Are we so double minded (James 4:8) that to say one thing and then do another is perfectly acceptable to us? Or are those who hold the power in the church’s institutions and agencies indifferent as long as their ox is not being gored?
What happened to Christians respecting each other’s consciences in matters such as this? Why must Christians take the reins of power and co-opt the name and resources of others to advance their preferred political agenda? What is to stop these brothers and sisters from pressing their claims through YECA, EEN, Sojourners, 350.org, or any number of other organizations of like-minded individuals, whether Christian or not? How are we to understand the continual, obvious, and divisive politicking of the church except as a display of arrogance and disregard in the face of brothers and sisters who differ?
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
Hello Lubbert,
I'm familiar with that material, as well as DeMoor's commentary. I guess what I was more looking for was some proponent of the type of lobbying that Doug here decries to interact with Doug's question about the institutional church transacting ecclesiastical matters only. I am interested to see someone who favors this type of activity in the church grapple honestly and more than surficially with our covenantal language.
The closest I've seen in this thread is Tom Ackerman's quote: "I disagree with your statements about the role of the church on issues of social justice, including global warming. There is no stronger message in the Bible than our requirement as God's people to seek justice and to love mercy. Laying waste to our environment is neither just nor merciful."
A couple of observations:
1) Tom does not in this argument establish that lobbying for a carbon tax is an ecclesiastical matter, except to establish his belief that it relates to justice an mercy. But of course, every aspect of life relates to justice and mercy in one fashion or another, but that does not maker every matter in life ecclesiastical (of or relating to a church especially as an established institution).
2) There are indeed stronger messages in the Bible than our requirement (law) to seek justice and love mercy. Grace always overwhelms law in the Christian gospel, so it simply will not do to posit law as the dominant theme of the Bible.
3) In this quote Tom illustrates the cardinal sin of environmentalism, that of hyperbolic pronouncement. Later in the thread Tom objects to the use of the term "alarmist". But the word is used for a reason, and the history of alarming exaggeration within environmentalism is long and illustrious, whether the name be Ehrlich, Gore, Hayhoe, McKibben, or some politician pandering for votes through fear. The idiom "lay waste" is defined in one place as "to devastate; destroy; ruin", which is typical of its common usage. The idea that humanity is somehow devastating, destroying, or ruining "our environment" is the the type of apocalyptic language that is so detached from reality that the purveyor of such fearful language drives people into two disparate camps: First, true believers, who begin to speak and act in more and more irrational ways (see Green New Deal language) due to exaggerated fears. Second, those who are driven away by the hyperbole and flee to the opposite end of the spectrum, and often in so doing also discount realistic concerns. So the use of such hyperbole is quite counterproductive, and it continues to be the Achilles heel of the environmental movement, both within and without Christianity.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
http://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=5729035-Green-New-Deal-FAQ
Hilarious. Absolutely hilarious. Like it was written by a sixth grader or Miss Universe contestant asked how they intend to save the planet.
But in many ways it is not funny at all, because actual elected legislators think this is sound thinking. Best quote, perhaps: The Green New Deal will guarantee "Economic security for all who are unable or unwilling to work."
Posted in: On Mental Illnesses and Head Knowledge
Michele,
What a wonderful offering! You have spoken true and comforting words which impacted me intellectually and emotionally. May God continue to bless you with peace and assurance.
Posted in: What Do You Call Your Benevolence Ministry?
I agree, Lloyd. I don't think that the first impulse should be to change the language of the church as much as we should redouble our efforts to train and disciple using the language of the church. There are many terms of the church that are "old" and not always understood by all, but I would offer that is not because our people *cannot* understand them, but perhaps more that the church has not always taken the opportunity to embrace and promote the language of the church.
When I hear the questioner above say that some of the younger members don't know what benevolence means, I hear an opportunity for the deacons to send a couple representatives each year to the youth group to explain the work of the deacons, including the work of benevolence. What a joyful opportunity to connect with the youth!