It doesn't work to use Paul to say matters of sexual immorality are "debatable matters" in which we should just agree to disagree when Paul specifically teaches the wickedness of sexual immorality, in full concurrence with the rest of scriptural witness.
The fact that Jesus is Lord is immutable, no matter the wickedness of man. But the apostles still taught very clearly that a life marked by being given over to sin is not the life of one saved unto eternal life. Yes, this matters. Paul said those whose life is defined and marked by unrepentant sin will not inherit the Kingdom of God. These are matters that bear on the gospel. Is not the mortification of the old self part and parcel to the gospel of salvation? Is new birth a birth unto the same practices of old? Is sanctification a mark of those who have been declared righteous?
Hermeneutics matters because if scripture is made to be putty in my hands based on my preferred approach, then I can (and will be inclined to) fashion the word in my image and to my liking. There is no end to the self-justification that can occur when the scripture is allowed to be handled carelessly. Will we ever have a perfect understanding or approach to scripture? Clearly not. But to act as if our approach to scripture does not matter is incoherent. Muslims have a hermeneutic when they read scripture as well. Does it matter that their hermeneutic differs from ours? It matters how we approach scripture because God's Word actually means something.
Hi Adam, I think you are probably both correct and incorrect. No doubt there have been cases of ostracization and indifference, if not at times outright cruelty. Where we as individuals and churches fail by turning our back on any struggling sinner, we ought rightly to repent and change. I don't think, however, that you are in a position to judge generally that Christians have not come alongside other Christians struggling with sexual temptation in this area. Just because you don't see a "movement", does not mean that this sort of discipleship and love is not happening day in and day out. Discipleship, friendship, and love don't rely on "movements".
It can also become very difficult to walk alongside someone when a section of the church and most of society continues to tell them that the discipleship and comfort we offer is in fact hate. Once that message is believed and internalized, the only message that is put out is that the church fails to accept, when the church may have tried mightily. The headlines often fail to honestly reflect truth.
There is no doubt that we can all make improvements in bearing each other's burdens, not just on this particular topic. But I think you are not well-positioned to make the sort of charge that you seek to leverage from Scripture that the CRC simply ties heavy burdens and does not lift a finger to move them. The burden that is there is first of all not tied or bound by the CRC, to the extent that the moral law in question is not a man-made law. Jesus was speaking of the laundry list of man-made minutiae that the Pharisees had added to the moral and ceremonial law. The burdens they tied were above and beyond what God had commanded. The CRC seeks to do no such thing. Also, in order to judge that no finger has been lifted to help those in need requires a much more omniscient knowledge of the many and varied people, congregations, pastors, and situations than I think you can claim to have.
1. You have said things about overtures 13 & 14 that are not true. You would do well to acknowledge that. These overtures would in no way stop the church from speaking clearly on pressing moral issues. You have missed the mark with this criticism.
2. If you think that overtures 13 &14 are simply "quibbling over who the messenger should be", then you misread them badly. It is not simply about who is saying what, but also about what is being said and with what authority. Whether or not you want to recognize the fact, OSJ and Race Relations (among others) have said and continue to say things that violate and at times seek to bind the consciences of faithful CRC members. That should concern you.
3. Overtures 13 & 14 don't seek to "lay bare hidden fissures", but rather seek to stop denominational employees form exacerbating hidden (or not so hidden) fissures. The fissures are there. Some are normal and healthy diversity of opinion. Some are basic and foundational and grounded more in interpretation of the gospel and approach to scripture. Acting as if these fissures are not there is foolish. Exacerbating these fissures by "lording it over" others in using the bully pulpit is unbiblical and not promoting of unity. Overtures 13 & 14 can promote unity by recognizing and promoting principles of love and justice without impinging on each others' freedom in Christ. That is conducive to unity.
4. The idea that if we just work harder to understand the implications of justice we will all arrive at some unanimous conclusion of what love and justice require in public policy is naive and ignorant of what the entirety of human history teaches us. Simply put, the Bible does not dictate many of the things we encounter is daily life. There is no one Christian immigration policy. There is no one Christian economic policy. There is no one Christian environmental policy. Christians of good conscience will always and forever disagree on these matters. The question is, will those in power lord over those not in power? The answer to that question will go a long ways toward determining the future of the CRC.
"In contrast, today most messages from the pulpit are designed to take us away from this life."
Wow, Nick, that's quite a sweeping accusation. I bet there are quite a few ministers of the Word out there who would disagree that are not preaching from the Word in the light of the Catechism for how to "live life Christianly". I'm sorry if you've been so deprived, but I hear sermons continuously on how to live in light of "all that Jesus commanded." But my minister also doesn't try to pass off OT civil instructions to "welcome the stranger" as immigration policy.
I have no problem, personally with healthy immigration numbers, but consider for a moment the outworking of what you insinuate. Isn't any limit on immigration "restricted immigration"? Do you advocate for no restriction? If you advocate for some restrictions, how are you not then unloving by your standard? Love your neighbor and welcome strangers are not immigration policy prescriptions. The only way to consistently use your standard of "love your neighbor" as immigration policy would be to let in anyone who wanted to enter, which would be an end to the nation-state. There is no such thing as a nation-state if there is no such thing as national sovereignty.
The church is equipping the saints for ministry, however imperfectly. The fact that people don't engage in political reasoning in the same manner that you do is not prima facie evidence to the contrary.
Thanks for your response. I should clarify quickly before going any further that I am using the term “nation-state” in the broad sense of the term, as follows: “a nation-state is simply a large, politically sovereign country or administrative territory”. This is contrasted with the narrow sense of the term that sometimes is used: “a country where a distinct cultural or ethnic group (a "nation" or "people") inhabits a territory and have formed a state (often a sovereign state) that they predominantly govern”.
On the face of it the Bible actually does command us to recognize, respect, and honor the nation-state. Romans 13 tells us that God himself instituted government and appoints the governing authorities. Just like Jesus told us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, Romans 13 also tells us to pay our taxes. How can there be government if there is no nation and no sovereignty? Who pays taxes if not citizens of a nation? God institutes government to restrain evil. Nation-state in the narrow sense may be weakening historically, but not in the broad sense. Just because heaven will not have nation-states does not mean that it is “moving in the direction of the kingdom” for nation-states to weaken on earth. Take law-enforcement, for example. There is will be no law-enforcement in the fully realized Kingdom of God. But the weakening or doing away with law enforcement here and now would not be moving in the direction of the Kingdom.
I absolutely do not think that the European Union represents a model worthy of Christian support. There is simply nothing more Christian about the European Union than the more complete sovereignty of the United States or Canada. The EU simply represents a confederation of mostly-sovereign nation-states who have banded together for some economic and political reasons. There are other choices between the EU and “isolationism”. Have you been lobbying your Canadian MPs to dissolve the Canadian government and become the 51st state of the union? Canada is pretty much the 51st state already, why not make it official? :) Wouldn't that be moving toward the Kingdom?
People in separate nation-states can just as easily see each other as image-bearers as can neighbors in the same small town in the middle of the U.S. or Canada. You state generally that Christians should advocate for immigrations laws that value humans as image-bearers, but you give no specificity. Many faithful Christians will differ greatly in what those laws will then look like, and neither you nor the institutional church has the authority to bind my conscience in the matter.
Money is not the only revered value of our culture, and there are many other worldly things to parrot. It is just as easy and tempting to parrot various political values of our surrounding culture regarding matters such as race and immigration. We don’t need the church dictating biblically debatable political and social matters to her members, and thereby acting as the hand saying to the eye “I don’t need you”.
A few remaining comments and then I'll duck out of this conversation:
1. The EU is arguably no more successful than NATO, and is in no way mandated or even logically required by scripture. If you like it, fine, but the idea that the EU is somehow closer to the kingdom of God than the U.S. or Canada is laughable. The EU also does not eliminate borders or even sovereignty, otherwise a country such as Great Britain could not leave.
2. I did not say that the church should not bind the conscience of its members. I specifically said that the church should not seek to bind the conscience of its members with respect to immigration laws, to the extent that the Bible does not establish immigration laws, unless you intend to import OT theocratic civil law into North America, which betrays a lack of understanding of scripture.
3. Please show me where I stated a "view that immigration policies should aim to preserve our home country". I did not do so. Nor did I in any way state of insinuate that "our home country is only for people like us and we will let people in only if there is a net benefit to us". You are assigning things to me that I have not said, which makes this conversation quite difficult.
4. For a government to govern its people in a way that is conducive to the peaceful thriving of its people is not contrary to what Jesus taught.
5. Simply put, with no borders there is no coherent concept of government. You cannot govern a citizenry that you cannot define. You cannot tax those who have no citizenship. If you cannot subject a defined people in a defined geographical area to laws, you cannot carry out the God-ordained functions of government.
A wise man once told me: "Every form is an art form, and every art form has a message." I don't know if that statement is attributable to someone other than him, but it matters me not.
I think there are dual dangers in the "church clothing" conversation: First, to assume (and act as if) clothing says/means nothing; and second, to assume (and act as if) clothing says/means everything.
The challenge for me, personally, has been to care much about how I approach worship (including clothing choices) without thinking I can quickly judge or reach conclusions about others based on how they dress.
I think it is the wrong approach to allow culture to dictate how we approach worship. So, I never concern myself that my attire will drive away a seeker. There is no compelling reason for me to believe that a church visitor who is loved by those he/she encounters will be scared by attire. They will, however, quite quickly pick up an attitude of dismissiveness or indifference based on appearance. If I had to chose between children who dressed to the nines but grew up to disdain others who did not, and children who demonstrated little concern for attire but poured themselves out in love for others, I'd chose the latter any day (in I Cor. 13 fashion). But, of course, we need not pretend that these are the only two choices. It was always my hope with my children that I could convey a sense of awe and honor in worship that would lead them to understand that it does matter how they approach worship, including clothing choices. At the same time, I hoped to instill a mentality that also was slow to judge others for different choices and quick to demonstrate the love of God despite appearances. I'm sure my own careless comments or actions have at times undercut my best intentions.
I think our churches can and should be places where we strive to be very intentional and honoring in how we approach God, while not succumbing to the temptation to give a honored place to those who present the best or judging with unrighteous judgment those who do not meet some standard of neatness or propriety.
To be "more authentic and more welcoming" to me has everything to do with the attitude of our hearts and how we approach people, and has little to nothing to do with attire. I see nothing "inauthentic" about a well-coiffed individual, unless they are projecting an air of "having it all together" while demonstrating a lack of love for others. I've also met plenty of poorly dressed people who were extremely unwelcoming. The old song says "They will know we are Christians by our love" (as does John 13:35).
It seems to me that this discussion is closely tied to the tension of immanence and transcendence. God's immanence leads us to a sincere and close relationship with a God for whom there is no pretense, no pretending. If we prize our clothes and outward presentation, we may miss real intimate communing with God. God's transcendence leads us to a proper sense of awe, creaturely unworthiness, and honor. If we feel like it is appropriate to approach God with no sense of propriety whatsoever, we do not honor his holiness. We know full well in other areas of life that simply showing up is not enough. We honor a wedding couple by wearing clothes appropriate for the celebration. We honor dignitaries by presenting ourselves with propriety. Scripture teaches us both that God is near, familiar, and intimate as well as God being high and lofty, worthy of great honor, and due only the best we have to offer.
I'm sympathetic to your financial dilemma I would encourage you not to "shake your fist at God", as it were, but rather look around for how God may yet provide for you. It seems to me that it would be entirely appropriate for you to speak with the deacons of your church concerning your dilemma, for they are God's ministers of mercy to you. They may be able to help with some combination of benevolent giving and budgeting help to provide for eventually retiring this burden completely. Oftentimes in the Christian life God does not intervene or provide in miraculous supernatural ways, but through very ordinary means such as the love and care of the body of Christ. May you be blessed in this way through your local church body, and may you again be encouraged in the loving provision of your Heavenly Father.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Andrew, I concur.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
It doesn't work to use Paul to say matters of sexual immorality are "debatable matters" in which we should just agree to disagree when Paul specifically teaches the wickedness of sexual immorality, in full concurrence with the rest of scriptural witness.
The fact that Jesus is Lord is immutable, no matter the wickedness of man. But the apostles still taught very clearly that a life marked by being given over to sin is not the life of one saved unto eternal life. Yes, this matters. Paul said those whose life is defined and marked by unrepentant sin will not inherit the Kingdom of God. These are matters that bear on the gospel. Is not the mortification of the old self part and parcel to the gospel of salvation? Is new birth a birth unto the same practices of old? Is sanctification a mark of those who have been declared righteous?
Hermeneutics matters because if scripture is made to be putty in my hands based on my preferred approach, then I can (and will be inclined to) fashion the word in my image and to my liking. There is no end to the self-justification that can occur when the scripture is allowed to be handled carelessly. Will we ever have a perfect understanding or approach to scripture? Clearly not. But to act as if our approach to scripture does not matter is incoherent. Muslims have a hermeneutic when they read scripture as well. Does it matter that their hermeneutic differs from ours? It matters how we approach scripture because God's Word actually means something.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Hi Adam, I think you are probably both correct and incorrect. No doubt there have been cases of ostracization and indifference, if not at times outright cruelty. Where we as individuals and churches fail by turning our back on any struggling sinner, we ought rightly to repent and change. I don't think, however, that you are in a position to judge generally that Christians have not come alongside other Christians struggling with sexual temptation in this area. Just because you don't see a "movement", does not mean that this sort of discipleship and love is not happening day in and day out. Discipleship, friendship, and love don't rely on "movements".
It can also become very difficult to walk alongside someone when a section of the church and most of society continues to tell them that the discipleship and comfort we offer is in fact hate. Once that message is believed and internalized, the only message that is put out is that the church fails to accept, when the church may have tried mightily. The headlines often fail to honestly reflect truth.
There is no doubt that we can all make improvements in bearing each other's burdens, not just on this particular topic. But I think you are not well-positioned to make the sort of charge that you seek to leverage from Scripture that the CRC simply ties heavy burdens and does not lift a finger to move them. The burden that is there is first of all not tied or bound by the CRC, to the extent that the moral law in question is not a man-made law. Jesus was speaking of the laundry list of man-made minutiae that the Pharisees had added to the moral and ceremonial law. The burdens they tied were above and beyond what God had commanded. The CRC seeks to do no such thing. Also, in order to judge that no finger has been lifted to help those in need requires a much more omniscient knowledge of the many and varied people, congregations, pastors, and situations than I think you can claim to have.
Posted in: Overtures, Politics, & Justice
Dan,
Did you mean "ecclesiastical" instead of "ecumenical"?
Posted in: Social Justice Overtures #12; #13; #14
Nick,
1. You have said things about overtures 13 & 14 that are not true. You would do well to acknowledge that. These overtures would in no way stop the church from speaking clearly on pressing moral issues. You have missed the mark with this criticism.
2. If you think that overtures 13 &14 are simply "quibbling over who the messenger should be", then you misread them badly. It is not simply about who is saying what, but also about what is being said and with what authority. Whether or not you want to recognize the fact, OSJ and Race Relations (among others) have said and continue to say things that violate and at times seek to bind the consciences of faithful CRC members. That should concern you.
3. Overtures 13 & 14 don't seek to "lay bare hidden fissures", but rather seek to stop denominational employees form exacerbating hidden (or not so hidden) fissures. The fissures are there. Some are normal and healthy diversity of opinion. Some are basic and foundational and grounded more in interpretation of the gospel and approach to scripture. Acting as if these fissures are not there is foolish. Exacerbating these fissures by "lording it over" others in using the bully pulpit is unbiblical and not promoting of unity. Overtures 13 & 14 can promote unity by recognizing and promoting principles of love and justice without impinging on each others' freedom in Christ. That is conducive to unity.
4. The idea that if we just work harder to understand the implications of justice we will all arrive at some unanimous conclusion of what love and justice require in public policy is naive and ignorant of what the entirety of human history teaches us. Simply put, the Bible does not dictate many of the things we encounter is daily life. There is no one Christian immigration policy. There is no one Christian economic policy. There is no one Christian environmental policy. Christians of good conscience will always and forever disagree on these matters. The question is, will those in power lord over those not in power? The answer to that question will go a long ways toward determining the future of the CRC.
Posted in: Social Justice Overtures #12; #13; #14
"In contrast, today most messages from the pulpit are designed to take us away from this life."
Wow, Nick, that's quite a sweeping accusation. I bet there are quite a few ministers of the Word out there who would disagree that are not preaching from the Word in the light of the Catechism for how to "live life Christianly". I'm sorry if you've been so deprived, but I hear sermons continuously on how to live in light of "all that Jesus commanded." But my minister also doesn't try to pass off OT civil instructions to "welcome the stranger" as immigration policy.
I have no problem, personally with healthy immigration numbers, but consider for a moment the outworking of what you insinuate. Isn't any limit on immigration "restricted immigration"? Do you advocate for no restriction? If you advocate for some restrictions, how are you not then unloving by your standard? Love your neighbor and welcome strangers are not immigration policy prescriptions. The only way to consistently use your standard of "love your neighbor" as immigration policy would be to let in anyone who wanted to enter, which would be an end to the nation-state. There is no such thing as a nation-state if there is no such thing as national sovereignty.
The church is equipping the saints for ministry, however imperfectly. The fact that people don't engage in political reasoning in the same manner that you do is not prima facie evidence to the contrary.
Posted in: Social Justice Overtures #12; #13; #14
Hi Nick,
Thanks for your response. I should clarify quickly before going any further that I am using the term “nation-state” in the broad sense of the term, as follows: “a nation-state is simply a large, politically sovereign country or administrative territory”. This is contrasted with the narrow sense of the term that sometimes is used: “a country where a distinct cultural or ethnic group (a "nation" or "people") inhabits a territory and have formed a state (often a sovereign state) that they predominantly govern”.
On the face of it the Bible actually does command us to recognize, respect, and honor the nation-state. Romans 13 tells us that God himself instituted government and appoints the governing authorities. Just like Jesus told us to render unto Caesar what is Caesar’s, Romans 13 also tells us to pay our taxes. How can there be government if there is no nation and no sovereignty? Who pays taxes if not citizens of a nation? God institutes government to restrain evil. Nation-state in the narrow sense may be weakening historically, but not in the broad sense. Just because heaven will not have nation-states does not mean that it is “moving in the direction of the kingdom” for nation-states to weaken on earth. Take law-enforcement, for example. There is will be no law-enforcement in the fully realized Kingdom of God. But the weakening or doing away with law enforcement here and now would not be moving in the direction of the Kingdom.
I absolutely do not think that the European Union represents a model worthy of Christian support. There is simply nothing more Christian about the European Union than the more complete sovereignty of the United States or Canada. The EU simply represents a confederation of mostly-sovereign nation-states who have banded together for some economic and political reasons. There are other choices between the EU and “isolationism”. Have you been lobbying your Canadian MPs to dissolve the Canadian government and become the 51st state of the union? Canada is pretty much the 51st state already, why not make it official? :) Wouldn't that be moving toward the Kingdom?
People in separate nation-states can just as easily see each other as image-bearers as can neighbors in the same small town in the middle of the U.S. or Canada. You state generally that Christians should advocate for immigrations laws that value humans as image-bearers, but you give no specificity. Many faithful Christians will differ greatly in what those laws will then look like, and neither you nor the institutional church has the authority to bind my conscience in the matter.
Money is not the only revered value of our culture, and there are many other worldly things to parrot. It is just as easy and tempting to parrot various political values of our surrounding culture regarding matters such as race and immigration. We don’t need the church dictating biblically debatable political and social matters to her members, and thereby acting as the hand saying to the eye “I don’t need you”.
Posted in: Social Justice Overtures #12; #13; #14
Hello Nick,
A few remaining comments and then I'll duck out of this conversation:
1. The EU is arguably no more successful than NATO, and is in no way mandated or even logically required by scripture. If you like it, fine, but the idea that the EU is somehow closer to the kingdom of God than the U.S. or Canada is laughable. The EU also does not eliminate borders or even sovereignty, otherwise a country such as Great Britain could not leave.
2. I did not say that the church should not bind the conscience of its members. I specifically said that the church should not seek to bind the conscience of its members with respect to immigration laws, to the extent that the Bible does not establish immigration laws, unless you intend to import OT theocratic civil law into North America, which betrays a lack of understanding of scripture.
3. Please show me where I stated a "view that immigration policies should aim to preserve our home country". I did not do so. Nor did I in any way state of insinuate that "our home country is only for people like us and we will let people in only if there is a net benefit to us". You are assigning things to me that I have not said, which makes this conversation quite difficult.
4. For a government to govern its people in a way that is conducive to the peaceful thriving of its people is not contrary to what Jesus taught.
5. Simply put, with no borders there is no coherent concept of government. You cannot govern a citizenry that you cannot define. You cannot tax those who have no citizenship. If you cannot subject a defined people in a defined geographical area to laws, you cannot carry out the God-ordained functions of government.
Posted in: What Is the Unofficial Dress Code at Your Church? Does it Matter?
A wise man once told me: "Every form is an art form, and every art form has a message." I don't know if that statement is attributable to someone other than him, but it matters me not.
I think there are dual dangers in the "church clothing" conversation: First, to assume (and act as if) clothing says/means nothing; and second, to assume (and act as if) clothing says/means everything.
The challenge for me, personally, has been to care much about how I approach worship (including clothing choices) without thinking I can quickly judge or reach conclusions about others based on how they dress.
I think it is the wrong approach to allow culture to dictate how we approach worship. So, I never concern myself that my attire will drive away a seeker. There is no compelling reason for me to believe that a church visitor who is loved by those he/she encounters will be scared by attire. They will, however, quite quickly pick up an attitude of dismissiveness or indifference based on appearance. If I had to chose between children who dressed to the nines but grew up to disdain others who did not, and children who demonstrated little concern for attire but poured themselves out in love for others, I'd chose the latter any day (in I Cor. 13 fashion). But, of course, we need not pretend that these are the only two choices. It was always my hope with my children that I could convey a sense of awe and honor in worship that would lead them to understand that it does matter how they approach worship, including clothing choices. At the same time, I hoped to instill a mentality that also was slow to judge others for different choices and quick to demonstrate the love of God despite appearances. I'm sure my own careless comments or actions have at times undercut my best intentions.
I think our churches can and should be places where we strive to be very intentional and honoring in how we approach God, while not succumbing to the temptation to give a honored place to those who present the best or judging with unrighteous judgment those who do not meet some standard of neatness or propriety.
Posted in: What Is the Unofficial Dress Code at Your Church? Does it Matter?
To be "more authentic and more welcoming" to me has everything to do with the attitude of our hearts and how we approach people, and has little to nothing to do with attire. I see nothing "inauthentic" about a well-coiffed individual, unless they are projecting an air of "having it all together" while demonstrating a lack of love for others. I've also met plenty of poorly dressed people who were extremely unwelcoming. The old song says "They will know we are Christians by our love" (as does John 13:35).
Posted in: What Is the Unofficial Dress Code at Your Church? Does it Matter?
It seems to me that this discussion is closely tied to the tension of immanence and transcendence. God's immanence leads us to a sincere and close relationship with a God for whom there is no pretense, no pretending. If we prize our clothes and outward presentation, we may miss real intimate communing with God. God's transcendence leads us to a proper sense of awe, creaturely unworthiness, and honor. If we feel like it is appropriate to approach God with no sense of propriety whatsoever, we do not honor his holiness. We know full well in other areas of life that simply showing up is not enough. We honor a wedding couple by wearing clothes appropriate for the celebration. We honor dignitaries by presenting ourselves with propriety. Scripture teaches us both that God is near, familiar, and intimate as well as God being high and lofty, worthy of great honor, and due only the best we have to offer.
Posted in: Singleness and the Question of God's Goodness
Hi Michele,
I'm sympathetic to your financial dilemma I would encourage you not to "shake your fist at God", as it were, but rather look around for how God may yet provide for you. It seems to me that it would be entirely appropriate for you to speak with the deacons of your church concerning your dilemma, for they are God's ministers of mercy to you. They may be able to help with some combination of benevolent giving and budgeting help to provide for eventually retiring this burden completely. Oftentimes in the Christian life God does not intervene or provide in miraculous supernatural ways, but through very ordinary means such as the love and care of the body of Christ. May you be blessed in this way through your local church body, and may you again be encouraged in the loving provision of your Heavenly Father.