Leo, Thank you for reaching out. I appreciate you and your elders working to revitalize eldership in your church. My congregation is engaged in a similar process. We are using Jeramie Rinne's excellent, short, book on church elders, entitled, Church Elders: How to Shepherd God's People Like Jesus. The book has helped us to realize that we may need to change both our elder's term limits and the process by which our congregation goes about selecting people to serve as elders. For what it's worth, I would not recommend that your elders delegate away the pastoral care of the congregation (at least, not in its entirety) to the deacons or to a lay group. I believe that the Scriptures are sufficiently clear that pastoral care is the primary responsibility of the elders (see, Acts 20:28-31; Eph. 4:11; 1 Pet. 5:1-4). An 'elder' who never engages in pastoral care is like a 'plumber' who doesn't works on pipes or an 'electrician' who never works with electricity.
Mark, I agree with you that "the RPW should first shape our general attitude toward God," but I think that most Christian Reformed congregation today would not agree with the RPW. In my experience, most Christian Reformed Churches operate on the normative principle of worship (if it isn't forbidden, it is permitted). Thus, many of our churches include liturgical elements that are nowhere commanded in Scripture either explicitly or by implication (e.g., lighting of Advent wreaths, Lenten observance, etc.). Perhaps its time that we revisit Q/A 96 as a denomination and ask ourselves whether we really believe what it says we believe.
Steve, I did a research project under Prof. John Bolt at Calvin Seminary on this topic. The long and short of what I found was that the Christian Reformed Church has historically included the concept of 'inerrancy' under the topic of the Scripture's infallibility (cf. Belgic Confession, Art. 7). In doing this, the CRCNA was simply carrying on the traditional understanding of Scripture that had been handed down from the Protestant Reformation (cf., Matthew Barret's new book on Sola Scriptura, entitled, 'God's Word Alone,' for more info.) This position was widely assumed in the denomination and was clearly restated by the CRCNA in 1961. In 1972, however, things began to change. In that year, Synod 1972 adopted a report on "The Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority." That report significantly muddied the waters about what the CRCNA believes about the infallibility of Scripture. Some, like John Frame at RTS - Orlando, have argued that the 1972 report and the 1961 report are compatible documents. So, the argument goes, we should assume that the CRCNA still confesses the concept of 'inerrancy' under her confession of Scripture's infallibility. Nevertheless, those who did not like the earlier understanding of the confessional position hailed the 1972 report as giving them the room they needed to deny Scriptural 'inerrancy.' This confused situation has remained with us down to this day, although I'm inclined to think that the non-inerrantists are in the ascendant.
I agree with Tom and Keith. If a person is not participating in the Lord's Supper, then there is a serious spiritual issue they are facing, possibly related to a lack of assurance regarding their salvation (1 Cor. 11:29). If they are not "holding firmly to the trustworthy message [of the Gospel]," that is, if they themselves are not strongly encouraged by the Gospel, it is hard to see how they would have the ability to "encourage others by sound doctrine" (Titus 1:9).
Elders are permitted to officiate at the Lord's Supper provided that they have received the approval of classis to do so (C.O., Art. 55). Otherwise, only ministers of the Word or commissioned pastors are authorized to officiate at the Lord's Supper. Logically, this applies also to the case of celebrating the Lord's Supper with those who are sick or shut-in.
Prof. DeMoor's position is one way of trying to address this issue, but it is not the official position of the Christian Reformed Church nor do I think that it is the best application of C.O. Art. 55.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, in the context of talking about sacraments, the verb "administer" most commonly is used to refer the "dispensing" or "distributing" of the sacrament. Accordingly, when C.O. Art. 55 says that "the sacraments shall be administered...by a minister of the Word, etc.," I take it to mean that the distribution of the sacrament is to be by a minister of the Word or some other ordained official approved by classis. It is true that elders often assist the minister to distribute the elements, but (1) this can (and probably should) be viewed as an extension of the ministers own act and (2) it is done in the presence and under the supervision of the minister. Accordingly, I would argue that, if we are going to distribute the elements of the Lord's Supper to someone who is shut-in, C.O. Art. 55 requires that this distribution be done by or under the direct supervision of a classical official, i.e., a minister of the Word, a commissioned pastor, or an elder who has received authorization from classis.
Regarding Anglican practice, we need to remember that Anglican practice (esp., the practice of reserving the bread and wine) is founded on the Anglo-Catholic belief that the consecrating of the bread and wine for use in the Lord's Supper somehow bestows on the bread and wine a permanent consecrated quality. Accordingly, for Anglicans, a reservation of the elements and distribution of those elements at a later time makes sense, because, for them, the sacramental action persists so long as the elements exist.
In the Reformed churches, however, we do not believe that the elements of bread and wine possess some permanent sacramental quality after their use in the communal celebration. It is for this reason that we don't say someone has committed an act of sacrilege, if they go into the church refrigerator after the service and decides to make a sandwich out of some of the bread that had been used for communion and also decide to wash it down with some of the wine that had been used. The bread and wine have ceased serving a holy purpose at the conclusion of the community's use of them for the Lord's Supper. Accordingly, I would argue, with regard to shut-ins, that it will be more in keeping with our sacramental theology if a classically approved official takes the elements to the shut-in at the same time that the elements are distributed to the rest of the community. If that is not possible, then I believe that a classically approved official should administer the sacrament anew at the shut-ins home.
Ken, I do not understand why what I have suggested is not practical. If a church has people who are shut-in and they want their elders to be able to take the Lord's Supper to those people, then they should seek classis's authorization for the elders to do that. It would probably take a total of 3 minutes (if that!) to accomplish at a classis meeting.
Your argument for deliberately going against C.O. Art. 55 seems to be built on a logical fallacy called "Appeal to Emotion." It does not follow from the fact that you were deeply moved by what the elders did that what they did was in good order (cf. 1 Cor. 14:40).
I do not think that the celebration of the Lord's Supper with you was a farce, but I do think that the elders should have known and should have done better.
I am deeply discouraged by this communication. For starters, it fails to mention that the CRC's official position is that an induced abortion is morally permissible only when it is done to save the physical life of a mother-to-be. In all other cases, it is murder, a violation of the sixth commandment.
Second, it fails to mention that most, if not all, of the ballot initiatives related to abortion this year (but especially in Michigan) are, according to the above official position, profoundly immoral. If the ballot proposals had to do with giving people the right to euthanize their newborns, I doubt that the communication would be so noncommittal and tepid.
Finally, it comes across as passing the buck. In the US, there is virtually no chance in the next several years that abortion legislation is going to be considered at the national level. This means that, if we accept the premises of this communication, the OSJ and CRC will have no specific guidance on abortion legislation for the next several years. So, I will likely receive texts telling me to put pressure on my federal legislature when it comes to specific tax proposals, but the OSJ and CRC will be silent about whether I should put pressure on my state officials when it comes to specific abortion proposals. Again, this is all very discouraging. Unfortunately, it was not unexpected.
My initial desired result would be that CRC members and our broader communities would clearly know what our denomination (and Scripture) teaches about abortion and the sanctity of human life. Based on that knowledge, I would hope that readers would recognize their moral duty to 'flock to the polls' to vote against the pro-abortion proposals in their states. I would also hope that readers would draw the conclusion that CRC, pro-abortion, politicians are not walking in accord with God's Word. Whether they went on to vote for those politicians or not is a prudential judgment for which they are responsible - and Christ will hold them responsible, as He will every Christian.
If the communication led some people to feel more fear for the lives of unborn children, that would be good, because it would provide them with an opportunity to be courageous in the defense and support of those children. If the communication led some people to feel more fear for the lives of women, then that would be good, because, it would provide them with an opportunity to be courageous in helping women who have unwanted pregnancies or are being bullied into having an abortion by their families, partners, or doctors.
If the communication led some people to feel more shame, that shame could very well be good, because those who feel that shame may have said or done things for which they should feel shame. In my ideal communication, it would be obvious that those who feel shame are called to repent and believe God's gospel promise: that He will forgive our sins and grant us eternal life through faith alone in Jesus Christ.
Reiterating the truth about what God teaches about abortion and our duty to unborn children enables Christians to love each other more fully in a variety of ways. First and foremost, it helps Christians to love more fully their own unborn covenant children and the unborn children of their unbelieving neighbors. Second, it helps Christians to love each other more fully by reminding them of the deep value that God places on every human life both born and unborn. Third, it helps Christians to love each other more fully by helping them to distinguish between acts that are consistent with love (i.e., those that are compatible with God's Law) and those that are not. Fourth, it helps Christians to love each other by warning them away from following false teachers and false role models.
I think your 'challenge' points to the inherently contradictory way that Synod has handled this issue over the last thirty or so years. Since 1973, the CRCNA has officially 'advised' its members to believe that "homosexual practice must be condemned as incompatible with the will of God as revealed in Holy Scripture" and it has 'advised' its members to believe that homosexual practice is incompatible with "a life of chastity" (Acts of Synod 1973, p.53). Given this advice, many members have drawn the completely reasonable conclusion that - given the wording of HC Q/A 108 - the CRCNA is advising its membership to view homosexual practice as incompatible with the seventh commandment and, thus, as incompatible with the teaching of our confessions. You can't deny that the reasoning is natural and intuitive.
Over the last thirty years or so, however, the CRCNA has offered the "pastoral advice" loophole to revisionist officebearers and members in an effort to keep them in the denomination. So, now we are in our present untenable position. On the one hand, the CRCNA has more or less implicitly encouraged traditionalists for the last fifty years to view homosexual practice as a confessional issue. On the other hand, however, the CRCNA has more or less encouraged 'progressives' or 'revisionists' to view homosexual practice as a non-confessional issue and to emphasize the 'advice' aspect of 1973's statements. This situation is inherently unstable. And we are simply at the point where the contradiction has become utterly apparent.
I think the committee is right to point out the confessional implication of Synod 1973's statements on homosexual practice. If Synod 1973 is correct that "homosexual practice must be condemned as incompatible with the will of God as revealed in Holy Scripture" and if it is correct that homosexual practice is incompatible with "a life of chastity," then, logically, homosexual practice is incompatible with our confessions. Synod 2021 should make a decision: either (A) endorse the clear confessional implications that Synod 1973's statements have or (B) withdraw those statements. Admittedly, if Synod chooses (A), revisionist congregations will likely begin to leave the denomination or be forced out. And, if Synod chooses (B), traditionalists congregations will likely begin to leave the denomination. And, if Synod chooses (C), i.e., neither (A) nor (B), I predict that traditionalist congregations will largely still leave the denomination. In short, there is no happy exit out of this mess.
Henry, I am not persuaded by your understanding of what "respecting" a Synodical decision means. Instead, I think that your commentary has it exactly right. If Synod makes a decision which (a) is of non-confessional nature and which (b) does not imply that people have a choice in the matter (i.e., it doesn't use terms like may, might, or can), then churches, classes, and individuals are not allowed to act contrary to those decisions. As you rightly state, "If it were otherwise, we would once again be left with ‘autonomous individuals’ or ‘autonomous local churches’” (DeMoor, Commentary, 169).
Your argument about "negative/protest votes" does not support your (new?) understanding of what "respecting" a decision means. All that "protest votes" indicate is that people in our denomination are allowed to speak and write against a synodical decision. They do not imply that the protestor, their classis, or their local congregation are thereby freed to act contrary to Synod's decision. "If it were otherwise, we would once again be left with ‘autonomous individuals’ or ‘autonomous local churches’” (DeMoor, Commentary, 169).
Your example from your time teaching at the seminary is a perfect example of how our denomination has understood what it means to "respect" a decision of Synod. In class, you represented the denomination's position fairly, then you represented your own view. And you let the adults in the room decide for themselves what they were going to do with that information (e.g., write overtures to Synod or not). What you did not do is actively participate in a woman's ordination or advise a council to go forward with a woman's ordination. If you had, then you would clearly have been disrespecting Synod's decision.
If a member, congregation, or classis wants to act contrary to something Synod has taught, then they should either submit a gravamen or submit an overture. If Synod declines to adopt their recommendation, then the respectful thing to do is either to (a) abide by the decision or (b) submit a new overture with different grounds or (c) leave for a denomination that allows them to act according to their conscience.
I read through the comments again this morning to see if anyone had touched on this and I was surprised when I saw that no one had. But one data point that none of us seems to have addressed is Synod 2016's adding a supplement to Church Order, 69-c.
According to Church Order, 69-c, "Ministers shall not solemnize marriages which would be in conflict with the Word of God." And Church Order Supplement, 69-c, states that "The pastoral guidance recommended to the churches by Synod 2016, found in the minority report of the Committee to Provide Pastoral Guidance re Same-sex Marriage (Agenda for Synod 2016, pp. 436-43), represents one example of how synod has determined that a marriage is considered to be in conflict with the Word of God. (cf. Acts of Synod 2016, p. 918)."
If someone goes back and reads the "pastoral guidance recommended to the churches," it is obvious that the specific example of "a marriage...considered to be in conflict with the Word of God" is a same-sex marriage. So, according to Synod 2016, one type of marriage that ministers may not solemnize, because it is in conflict with the Word of God, is a same-sex marriage. This seems to go well beyond the broad and permissive construal of "pastoral advice" that Henry has advocated for earlier in this thread.
It is arguable, then, that Synod has already moved its views on the ethics of homosexual sex outside of the realm of "pastoral advice." It now clearly teaches that same-sex marriages are "in conflict with the Word of God" and forbids its ministers from solemnizing said marriages. This seems to signal an important shift in Synod's position re: same-sex relationships. For, if same-sex marriages are in conflict with the Word of God and if all sexual intercourse outside of marriage is in conflict with the Word of God, then homosexual sex is in conflict with the Word of God. That is, according to the straightforward implication of Synod 2016's decisions, the CRCNA officially holds that homosexual sex is an instance of 'unchastity.' And, thus, someone could reasonably argue that the CRCNA regards homosexual sex to be in conflict with what it confesses regarding the seventh commandment (see, HC, Q/A, 108-109).
In any case, as this thread has demonstrated, the situation requires clarification. The Committee's recommendation D provides that clarification.
Posted in: Model for Pastoral Care by Elders?
Leo,
Thank you for reaching out. I appreciate you and your elders working to revitalize eldership in your church. My congregation is engaged in a similar process. We are using Jeramie Rinne's excellent, short, book on church elders, entitled, Church Elders: How to Shepherd God's People Like Jesus. The book has helped us to realize that we may need to change both our elder's term limits and the process by which our congregation goes about selecting people to serve as elders.
For what it's worth, I would not recommend that your elders delegate away the pastoral care of the congregation (at least, not in its entirety) to the deacons or to a lay group. I believe that the Scriptures are sufficiently clear that pastoral care is the primary responsibility of the elders (see, Acts 20:28-31; Eph. 4:11; 1 Pet. 5:1-4). An 'elder' who never engages in pastoral care is like a 'plumber' who doesn't works on pipes or an 'electrician' who never works with electricity.
Posted in: How Does the 'Regulative Principle' Inform Worship?
Mark, I agree with you that "the RPW should first shape our general attitude toward God," but I think that most Christian Reformed congregation today would not agree with the RPW. In my experience, most Christian Reformed Churches operate on the normative principle of worship (if it isn't forbidden, it is permitted). Thus, many of our churches include liturgical elements that are nowhere commanded in Scripture either explicitly or by implication (e.g., lighting of Advent wreaths, Lenten observance, etc.). Perhaps its time that we revisit Q/A 96 as a denomination and ask ourselves whether we really believe what it says we believe.
Posted in: CRC Statement on Bible Being Inerrant?
Steve,
I did a research project under Prof. John Bolt at Calvin Seminary on this topic. The long and short of what I found was that the Christian Reformed Church has historically included the concept of 'inerrancy' under the topic of the Scripture's infallibility (cf. Belgic Confession, Art. 7). In doing this, the CRCNA was simply carrying on the traditional understanding of Scripture that had been handed down from the Protestant Reformation (cf., Matthew Barret's new book on Sola Scriptura, entitled, 'God's Word Alone,' for more info.) This position was widely assumed in the denomination and was clearly restated by the CRCNA in 1961. In 1972, however, things began to change. In that year, Synod 1972 adopted a report on "The Nature and Extent of Biblical Authority." That report significantly muddied the waters about what the CRCNA believes about the infallibility of Scripture. Some, like John Frame at RTS - Orlando, have argued that the 1972 report and the 1961 report are compatible documents. So, the argument goes, we should assume that the CRCNA still confesses the concept of 'inerrancy' under her confession of Scripture's infallibility. Nevertheless, those who did not like the earlier understanding of the confessional position hailed the 1972 report as giving them the room they needed to deny Scriptural 'inerrancy.' This confused situation has remained with us down to this day, although I'm inclined to think that the non-inerrantists are in the ascendant.
Posted in: Eligibility Question for Elder Nominee
I agree with Tom and Keith. If a person is not participating in the Lord's Supper, then there is a serious spiritual issue they are facing, possibly related to a lack of assurance regarding their salvation (1 Cor. 11:29). If they are not "holding firmly to the trustworthy message [of the Gospel]," that is, if they themselves are not strongly encouraged by the Gospel, it is hard to see how they would have the ability to "encourage others by sound doctrine" (Titus 1:9).
Posted in: Church Order Q: Can Elder's Perform the Lord's Supper to Those Who Are Sick or Shut-In?
Elders are permitted to officiate at the Lord's Supper provided that they have received the approval of classis to do so (C.O., Art. 55). Otherwise, only ministers of the Word or commissioned pastors are authorized to officiate at the Lord's Supper. Logically, this applies also to the case of celebrating the Lord's Supper with those who are sick or shut-in.
Posted in: Church Order Q: Can Elder's Perform the Lord's Supper to Those Who Are Sick or Shut-In?
Prof. DeMoor's position is one way of trying to address this issue, but it is not the official position of the Christian Reformed Church nor do I think that it is the best application of C.O. Art. 55.
According to the Oxford English Dictionary, in the context of talking about sacraments, the verb "administer" most commonly is used to refer the "dispensing" or "distributing" of the sacrament. Accordingly, when C.O. Art. 55 says that "the sacraments shall be administered...by a minister of the Word, etc.," I take it to mean that the distribution of the sacrament is to be by a minister of the Word or some other ordained official approved by classis. It is true that elders often assist the minister to distribute the elements, but (1) this can (and probably should) be viewed as an extension of the ministers own act and (2) it is done in the presence and under the supervision of the minister. Accordingly, I would argue that, if we are going to distribute the elements of the Lord's Supper to someone who is shut-in, C.O. Art. 55 requires that this distribution be done by or under the direct supervision of a classical official, i.e., a minister of the Word, a commissioned pastor, or an elder who has received authorization from classis.
Regarding Anglican practice, we need to remember that Anglican practice (esp., the practice of reserving the bread and wine) is founded on the Anglo-Catholic belief that the consecrating of the bread and wine for use in the Lord's Supper somehow bestows on the bread and wine a permanent consecrated quality. Accordingly, for Anglicans, a reservation of the elements and distribution of those elements at a later time makes sense, because, for them, the sacramental action persists so long as the elements exist.
In the Reformed churches, however, we do not believe that the elements of bread and wine possess some permanent sacramental quality after their use in the communal celebration. It is for this reason that we don't say someone has committed an act of sacrilege, if they go into the church refrigerator after the service and decides to make a sandwich out of some of the bread that had been used for communion and also decide to wash it down with some of the wine that had been used. The bread and wine have ceased serving a holy purpose at the conclusion of the community's use of them for the Lord's Supper. Accordingly, I would argue, with regard to shut-ins, that it will be more in keeping with our sacramental theology if a classically approved official takes the elements to the shut-in at the same time that the elements are distributed to the rest of the community. If that is not possible, then I believe that a classically approved official should administer the sacrament anew at the shut-ins home.
Posted in: Church Order Q: Can Elder's Perform the Lord's Supper to Those Who Are Sick or Shut-In?
Ken,
I do not understand why what I have suggested is not practical. If a church has people who are shut-in and they want their elders to be able to take the Lord's Supper to those people, then they should seek classis's authorization for the elders to do that. It would probably take a total of 3 minutes (if that!) to accomplish at a classis meeting.
Your argument for deliberately going against C.O. Art. 55 seems to be built on a logical fallacy called "Appeal to Emotion." It does not follow from the fact that you were deeply moved by what the elders did that what they did was in good order (cf. 1 Cor. 14:40).
I do not think that the celebration of the Lord's Supper with you was a farce, but I do think that the elders should have known and should have done better.
Posted in: On State Propositions Regarding Abortion
I am deeply discouraged by this communication. For starters, it fails to mention that the CRC's official position is that an induced abortion is morally permissible only when it is done to save the physical life of a mother-to-be. In all other cases, it is murder, a violation of the sixth commandment.
Second, it fails to mention that most, if not all, of the ballot initiatives related to abortion this year (but especially in Michigan) are, according to the above official position, profoundly immoral. If the ballot proposals had to do with giving people the right to euthanize their newborns, I doubt that the communication would be so noncommittal and tepid.
Finally, it comes across as passing the buck. In the US, there is virtually no chance in the next several years that abortion legislation is going to be considered at the national level. This means that, if we accept the premises of this communication, the OSJ and CRC will have no specific guidance on abortion legislation for the next several years. So, I will likely receive texts telling me to put pressure on my federal legislature when it comes to specific tax proposals, but the OSJ and CRC will be silent about whether I should put pressure on my state officials when it comes to specific abortion proposals. Again, this is all very discouraging. Unfortunately, it was not unexpected.
Posted in: On State Propositions Regarding Abortion
My initial desired result would be that CRC members and our broader communities would clearly know what our denomination (and Scripture) teaches about abortion and the sanctity of human life. Based on that knowledge, I would hope that readers would recognize their moral duty to 'flock to the polls' to vote against the pro-abortion proposals in their states. I would also hope that readers would draw the conclusion that CRC, pro-abortion, politicians are not walking in accord with God's Word. Whether they went on to vote for those politicians or not is a prudential judgment for which they are responsible - and Christ will hold them responsible, as He will every Christian.
If the communication led some people to feel more fear for the lives of unborn children, that would be good, because it would provide them with an opportunity to be courageous in the defense and support of those children. If the communication led some people to feel more fear for the lives of women, then that would be good, because, it would provide them with an opportunity to be courageous in helping women who have unwanted pregnancies or are being bullied into having an abortion by their families, partners, or doctors.
If the communication led some people to feel more shame, that shame could very well be good, because those who feel that shame may have said or done things for which they should feel shame. In my ideal communication, it would be obvious that those who feel shame are called to repent and believe God's gospel promise: that He will forgive our sins and grant us eternal life through faith alone in Jesus Christ.
Reiterating the truth about what God teaches about abortion and our duty to unborn children enables Christians to love each other more fully in a variety of ways. First and foremost, it helps Christians to love more fully their own unborn covenant children and the unborn children of their unbelieving neighbors. Second, it helps Christians to love each other more fully by reminding them of the deep value that God places on every human life both born and unborn. Third, it helps Christians to love each other more fully by helping them to distinguish between acts that are consistent with love (i.e., those that are compatible with God's Law) and those that are not. Fourth, it helps Christians to love each other by warning them away from following false teachers and false role models.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
Henry,
I think your 'challenge' points to the inherently contradictory way that Synod has handled this issue over the last thirty or so years. Since 1973, the CRCNA has officially 'advised' its members to believe that "homosexual practice must be condemned as incompatible with the will of God as revealed in Holy Scripture" and it has 'advised' its members to believe that homosexual practice is incompatible with "a life of chastity" (Acts of Synod 1973, p.53). Given this advice, many members have drawn the completely reasonable conclusion that - given the wording of HC Q/A 108 - the CRCNA is advising its membership to view homosexual practice as incompatible with the seventh commandment and, thus, as incompatible with the teaching of our confessions. You can't deny that the reasoning is natural and intuitive.
Over the last thirty years or so, however, the CRCNA has offered the "pastoral advice" loophole to revisionist officebearers and members in an effort to keep them in the denomination. So, now we are in our present untenable position. On the one hand, the CRCNA has more or less implicitly encouraged traditionalists for the last fifty years to view homosexual practice as a confessional issue. On the other hand, however, the CRCNA has more or less encouraged 'progressives' or 'revisionists' to view homosexual practice as a non-confessional issue and to emphasize the 'advice' aspect of 1973's statements. This situation is inherently unstable. And we are simply at the point where the contradiction has become utterly apparent.
I think the committee is right to point out the confessional implication of Synod 1973's statements on homosexual practice. If Synod 1973 is correct that "homosexual practice must be condemned as incompatible with the will of God as revealed in Holy Scripture" and if it is correct that homosexual practice is incompatible with "a life of chastity," then, logically, homosexual practice is incompatible with our confessions. Synod 2021 should make a decision: either (A) endorse the clear confessional implications that Synod 1973's statements have or (B) withdraw those statements. Admittedly, if Synod chooses (A), revisionist congregations will likely begin to leave the denomination or be forced out. And, if Synod chooses (B), traditionalists congregations will likely begin to leave the denomination. And, if Synod chooses (C), i.e., neither (A) nor (B), I predict that traditionalist congregations will largely still leave the denomination. In short, there is no happy exit out of this mess.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
Henry,
I am not persuaded by your understanding of what "respecting" a Synodical decision means. Instead, I think that your commentary has it exactly right. If Synod makes a decision which (a) is of non-confessional nature and which (b) does not imply that people have a choice in the matter (i.e., it doesn't use terms like may, might, or can), then churches, classes, and individuals are not allowed to act contrary to those decisions. As you rightly state, "If it were otherwise, we would once again be left with ‘autonomous individuals’ or ‘autonomous local churches’” (DeMoor, Commentary, 169).
Your argument about "negative/protest votes" does not support your (new?) understanding of what "respecting" a decision means. All that "protest votes" indicate is that people in our denomination are allowed to speak and write against a synodical decision. They do not imply that the protestor, their classis, or their local congregation are thereby freed to act contrary to Synod's decision. "If it were otherwise, we would once again be left with ‘autonomous individuals’ or ‘autonomous local churches’” (DeMoor, Commentary, 169).
Your example from your time teaching at the seminary is a perfect example of how our denomination has understood what it means to "respect" a decision of Synod. In class, you represented the denomination's position fairly, then you represented your own view. And you let the adults in the room decide for themselves what they were going to do with that information (e.g., write overtures to Synod or not). What you did not do is actively participate in a woman's ordination or advise a council to go forward with a woman's ordination. If you had, then you would clearly have been disrespecting Synod's decision.
If a member, congregation, or classis wants to act contrary to something Synod has taught, then they should either submit a gravamen or submit an overture. If Synod declines to adopt their recommendation, then the respectful thing to do is either to (a) abide by the decision or (b) submit a new overture with different grounds or (c) leave for a denomination that allows them to act according to their conscience.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
I read through the comments again this morning to see if anyone had touched on this and I was surprised when I saw that no one had. But one data point that none of us seems to have addressed is Synod 2016's adding a supplement to Church Order, 69-c.
According to Church Order, 69-c, "Ministers shall not solemnize marriages which would be in conflict with the Word of God." And Church Order Supplement, 69-c, states that "The pastoral guidance recommended to the churches by Synod 2016, found in the minority report of the Committee to Provide Pastoral Guidance re Same-sex Marriage (Agenda for Synod 2016, pp. 436-43), represents one example of how synod has determined that a marriage is considered to be in conflict with the Word of God. (cf. Acts of Synod 2016, p. 918)."
If someone goes back and reads the "pastoral guidance recommended to the churches," it is obvious that the specific example of "a marriage...considered to be in conflict with the Word of God" is a same-sex marriage. So, according to Synod 2016, one type of marriage that ministers may not solemnize, because it is in conflict with the Word of God, is a same-sex marriage. This seems to go well beyond the broad and permissive construal of "pastoral advice" that Henry has advocated for earlier in this thread.
It is arguable, then, that Synod has already moved its views on the ethics of homosexual sex outside of the realm of "pastoral advice." It now clearly teaches that same-sex marriages are "in conflict with the Word of God" and forbids its ministers from solemnizing said marriages. This seems to signal an important shift in Synod's position re: same-sex relationships. For, if same-sex marriages are in conflict with the Word of God and if all sexual intercourse outside of marriage is in conflict with the Word of God, then homosexual sex is in conflict with the Word of God. That is, according to the straightforward implication of Synod 2016's decisions, the CRCNA officially holds that homosexual sex is an instance of 'unchastity.' And, thus, someone could reasonably argue that the CRCNA regards homosexual sex to be in conflict with what it confesses regarding the seventh commandment (see, HC, Q/A, 108-109).
In any case, as this thread has demonstrated, the situation requires clarification. The Committee's recommendation D provides that clarification.