Category Archive

I finally finished reading the rest of the Agenda for Synod 2008, and here are my highlights: (not that the material left out is unimportant):

The Candidacy [for ministry] Committee examined the issue of the status of ministry associates. It was their understanding that being a ministry associate does not automatically allow one to preach, [167]  but is determined by the mandate of the position the MA fills. Synod 2007 decided that MAs can be called as solo pastors given that “economic need” is present and the other relevant Church Order articles could not be followed. [170] The Candidacy Commitee recommends dropping the “economic need” clause, [171] and adopting a guideline to give a standard for whether it is appropriate to call a MA. [171]

The Contemporary Testimony revision seems excellent. They revised the report to avoid cliches and keep the wording meaningful, also responding to new issues in our changed contemporary situation. Scriptural references are listed at the bottom with explanatory sentences rather than footnotes in the text, which turns out to be very nice. As they changed some of the thematic developments, the report discourages word-for-word comparison with the 1986 version. [211] I don’t have the patience to study the whole document, but it reads well and is clear and relevant, as is its goal.

The Faith Formation Comittee had in its mandate two issues of most interest: children’s communion and infant dedication. Children’s communion is studied intensively, but no recommendations are stated for this year; they plan to end up producing thorough documents about this. [241] They plan to organize communication about topics in this area: putting together a web site, sending discussion points to councils, and organizing representative correspondents. [239-240] They put forth an interesting recommendation that Synod hold a discussion about these matters in the form of a luncheon. [241]

There were a few overtures concerning the new hymnal, slated for release in 2013. Overtures 6 and 7 deal with some proposal not to include the confessions in the hymnal; I didn’t see anything about this (perhaps I just missed it). Overture 8 wishes to ensure there is a seperate Psalm section in the hymnal, as in all previous. I think this issue has sides that are about balanced - having a seperate Psalm section reinforces the importance of singing the Psalms, however it also makes them harder to find, discouraging their use.

Overture 9 asks Synod to establish an “Environmental Policy Task Force”, to write up a list of guidelines for those that wish to live environmentally responsibly. I would have thought this should fall outside of Synod’s juristiction, however it is painfully obvious even at my own church this is needed, as people do not all see environmental responsibility as the important moral issue that it is. I strongly urge Synod to adopt the recommendation in this overture.

If I forgot anything important, be sure to let me know!

Do we need an “evangelical manifesto”?

I definitely think so.

Based on my own experiences, I have markedly seen evangelical Christianity looked down upon. Based on most of what I see, I would too.

Some evangelicals irked much of the mainstream through their creation of what is now called the “religious right”, trying to put Christian morality into of modern conservative politics. Some philosophers note that this is misguided, as Christianity and modern politics have completely different presuppositions. To many this looks like infringement upon civil liberties.

And this group, though less vocal, has seen some negative media coverage. For example, the movie Jesus Camp, released in 2006, portrays a certain evangelical/charismatic Christian retreat. People therein pray over bowling balls, pass out tracts to random people, participate in an anti-abortion protest, and pray over a cardboard George Bush. One feels that evangelicals are very much out of touch with reality after watching this. (It is a very excellent documentary; if you haven’t seen it, you need to.)

Therefore, evangelicals have been blasted twice: once because of a few that embark on a misguided political project, then again when a similar group seems very aloof and uninvolved with real issues. This is obviously not an accurate view of all the churches and people that would be grouped under evangelicalism. However, especially these few, through the megahorn of the media, have begun to define evangelicalism for many people.

Therefore, this needs to be corrected by something. The recently-released Evangelical Manifesto, though not perfect, counters these perceptions very well in the second and third sections. It is a way for evangelicals to regain the ability to define themselves, instead of the media or people’s developed biases doing so for them. However, I am quite unsure of whether it could have any lasting influence.

As for a closer examination of the content, James Smith did a far better job than I ever could, on the Generous Orthodoxy blog.

In an earlier post, I highlighted Todd Hiestand’s essay about being church in suburbia. I discovered that he indeed was putting these ideas into practice in a church, called The Well, in which he serves as one of the pastors. The Well is situated in the suburbs of Philadelphia (Feasterville).

The Well chose to have a warehouse as their building, as they put it “a new kind of church building that we believe will allow us to best be a blessing to our community”. This is because they see fostering the arts as an integral part of their mission:

More than likely you’ll notice a lot of really diverse and exceptional art on the walls when you come in. We use our space as an art gallery and concert venue for the local and greater Philadelphia artists and bands. This is a way for us to be a blessing to the world around us and allows us to simply try and be representatives of Jesus Christ in our world. While people who do not call The Well their church home do much of the art, we do have a number of gifted artists in our community. Often, you will see some of our artists painting during the service.

It is well worth looking at their flickr stream. Especially considering it is a warehouse, this is a beautiful place!

They also have an emphasis on the service as a time of community. This is something that has been bothering me at my church, where people hold almost all their talking until after the service, which I think negates some of the value of having a service. I very much enjoy their approach to ensuring this doesn’t happen:

People often say that the centerpiece to our Sunday morning is community. Whether it’s the 5-10 minute conversation/greeting time in the middle of the service, worshiping together or even a Q & A time during the message we understand and want to practice the fact that we are in this “faith thing” together.

To ensure they are continuing to examine their role in their context, they hold “midrash mettings” quarterly:

Because we believe that theology is best discussed in the context of a community of faith, we come together four times a year to discuss issues of theology and practice that are important to our community so that we may be more effective in being a part of God’s kingdom becoming a reality on earth as it is in heaven.

This all ties into the church’s suburban location, which Hiestand’s article shows has individualism at its core. Art fosters community by being an accessible expression of someone else’s feelings and thoughts. Including fellowship into the worship service provides an environment for community to grow. And the church values being continually relevant through regular re-examination of its context.

“In a world where celebrity equals talent, and where make-believe is called reality, is is most important to have real love, truth, and stability in your life”
–Bernie Brillstein (on my Starbucks cup)

In my past post examining this issue, I expressed my view that the new Doctrinal Covenant is a positive step for the CRC. I still hold to this position, though I wish to highlight some of the rather well-presented and opposing views I found among the overtures in the Agenda for Synod 2008, which have lead me to see that some changes are necessary.

There were six overtures and one communication concerning the Form of Subscription. However, Overture 19, presented by Classis Northcentral Iowa, I thought presented an insightful view of why the new Covenant needs at least revision.

Their first concern was the replacement of orthodoxy with postmodernism. They had issue (as I did) with the report saying that “A regulatory instrument is needed to keep us orthodox … is increasingly being called into question“. They raise the very valid point that in the relativistic postmodern times, the church needs to be a haven for absolute truth, which means it needs to hold that doctrine is still valid today.

They were also concerned with the divide between “contextual” and “timeless” truth. I enjoy their point that “the ambiguous statement that our historic confessions are merely ‘faithful expressions of the gospel in their time’ leaves open the question of whether the gospel itself changes over the years.” They note that flexibility is antithetical to the point of subscribing to a form/covenant. I think this point is very valid, yet see a danger in declaring the doctrinal standards “timelessly true” - I find this hermeneutically troubling. For example, in Article 36 of the Belgic Confession, the Anabaptists are put grouped with anarchists. This statement was properly footnoted in 1985, as this was not longer applicable at that time. Although parallel examples are not many, we must have the ability to say that certain parts of the confessions are historically conditioned and need interpretation in that context.

Their last concern was that the Doctrinal Covenant does not call for officebearers to actually believe the confessions personally. Thus, they explain, it falls short of being effective at being an instrument of orthodoxy. This, I believe, is a point that requires consideration by Synod. I never saw this before, but this is extremely critical for the Doctrinal Covenant to include. However, it is again quite difficult to include this without saying something like the old FoS: “we sincerely believe [the doctrinal standards] … fully agree with the Word of God“, which is again a bit hermeneutically troubling to me, but so is the language in the Doctrinal Covenant, saying officebearers need “to be shaped and governed by them“.

Therefore, I would propose the following to revision to the third paragraph in the Doctrinal Covenant:

With thankfulness for these expressions of faith we promise, in being shaped and governed by them, to wholeheartedly act in accordance with them and to promote them in our various callings: preaching, teaching, writing, and serving; making grateful use of the church’s testimony of faith for our time, Our World Belongs to God: A Contemporary Testimony.

I think this would resolve most of this last problem. By not trying to regulate belief, interpretations are allowed to vary somewhat. However, this would keep belief within the bounds of what one could call orthodoxy, saying the expression of those beliefs needs to accord with the confessions. This keeps the unity of action that the CRC values as a confessional church, while allowing for diversity in interpretation.

Blessed are the poor in spirit; for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.

I was reading the Boff brothers’ excellent book about Liberation Theology this past week. I highly recommend this book, even though liberation theology seems to have already had its heyday. The common perception of Liberation Theology constrains it to the Latin American situation, but the Boffs show that it goes far beyond that.

Liberation theology sought to liberate the oppressed, especially the poor. But the Boffs how that there are two types of poverty. Those who make less than a living, the socio-economic poor, first come to mind. The process of liberation here brings these people out of their poverty.

However, there are also those that Jesus described as poor in spirit, the Boffs’ evangelically poor. Unlike socio-economically, those who are not poor in spirit are the oppressed; people are liberated into this poverty.

After looking at this exposition, I saw that both types of liberation are brought about by the same thing: generosity.

To solve the extreme problem of socio-economic poverty, we need to be generous with our resources. We are to give things as money, grain (especially with its recent surge in cost), and prayer. We must also speak out against the injustices that our capitalistic system brings about in some parts of the world. However, I wish to remind all that it is a fallacy to say that this is the complete solution to poverty; personal involvement of many is very necessary as well. If anyone is looking for a very worthy cause in this area, have a look at Emmanuel’s Wish, a small charity which supports African orphanages; also don’t forget your local homeless!

But to be poor in spirit, we must go beyond just our resources, instead giving away our very selves. To be poor in spirit is to counter our natural tendency to hoard ourselves, instead by being devoted completely to God (as Paul put it, a “living sacrifice”), and following his command to love our neighbour. And liberated from the oppression of individualism, Christians can form a community of the truly free.

This is where the second part of the Beatitude comes into play. The poor in spirit have the Kingdom of Heaven, for they make it up, and set free from self-interest, are ready to create it anew together.

And the first part of this is casting off oppressive ideologies. Both the physical and spiritual elements of life can be appreciated, throwing away both the Platonism in some Christianity and the denial of the spiritual in humanism. Each individual can be appreciated in their own peculiar way, as preference and prejudice can be disposed of. This creates the opportunity for vibrant and rich community.

Basically, the church becomes a community in itself, but inside the communities of the temporal world. But, because the church is the medium in which the Kingdom is developed, it shows to the temporal community what it ought to be like, and in its life, persuade the temporal community and its members that the Christian way is better. Francis Shaeffer put it this way:

“…We must exhibit that, on the basis of the work of Christ, the Chruch can acheive partially, but substantially, what the secular world wants and cannot get. The Church ought to be a “pilot plant,” where men can see in our congregations and missions a substantial healing of all the divisions, the alienations, man’s rebellion has produced.” (Pollution and the Death of Man, 81-82)

This is the dream of the missional church. For the world is starving spiritually in a way as severe as the hungry. The compassion demanded by our love in Christ ought to extend to all the oppressed: both the economically poor and the spiritually rich. And in generosity, we have the tools to live this compassion out.

I think I might be the only person to ever get excited about this, but the Christian Reformed Church’s Agenda For Synod 2008 was released very recently. There seems to be an extreme lack of commentary about most synodical issues, even in the blogosphere, and the agendas themselves are often very dense to the point of being next to unreadable. Thus, behold my summary of those issues I found interesting therein.

I have put page numbers in square brackets [ ] if you want to see where something is.

The Board of Trustees (the BOT!) takes care of denominational matters during the 51/52s of the year that Synod isn’t in session. They prepare each year a large report of what they do, usually a bit dull…

The BOT is putting forth a proposal to no longer have woman advisors, as woman delegates to Synod have surpassed the number of advisors allocated. [24] The BOT is also proposing single nominations for denominational board positions (instead of the current two) [28], and discontinuing the alternate positions on those boards. [29]

A revision of Article 23-d of the Church Order to allow solo pastors of congregations affiliating with the CRC to not require time at Calvin Seminary is brought up again for approval, as it need confirmation after passing at Synod 2007. [31]

There are a few miscellaneous things that don’t fit nicely into a paragraph: The past list of classis that have declared the word male inoperative has been replaced by a list of classis that have decided that women may not be delegated to classis (there are 6). [23] The BOT endorsed the participation of the CRC in Project Ploughshares to participate in the issue of War and Peace. [31] Among the many summaries of various ministries, I found an “Office of Ministry Planning”, [36] which has an interesting mandate. All Nations Heritage Week is recommended for celebration in the churches. [42]

The BOT’s Bible Translation Commitee found the New Living Translation acceptable for use in the churches, with reservations; [29] appendix A is the report of this committee. [43] The report lays out both how the  strong dynamic-equivalence translation approach of the NLT can be useful for comprehension, but this same technique can distance the translation from the original texts. [45-48] In light of this, the committee suggests guidelines on its use, namely that another translation be used alongside the NLT. [48] Therefore, the recommendation includes “with reservations” to ensure this is clear. However, I feel unsure that this will peculate to the churches wanting to use the NLT.

The report mentions that Synod 2006 directed the BOT to appoint a standing Translation Committee, but the BOT decided to establish ad hoc (case-by-case) committees insteads, such as the one studying the NLT. Why didn’t they follow the direction of Synod?

The Interchurch Relations Committee discussed the relationship between the CRC and the PCN (Protestant Church in the Netherlands). [182-185] In the past, the CRC imposed a restricted relationship with the GKN (the Reformed church of the Netherlands) for various reasons. Recently, the GKN merged with some other churches to form the PCN, and the IRC argues the restrictions do not transfer, and maintaining an ecumenical relationship with the Dutch Reformed churches is important.

There were a few study committees, as always. The most significant and controversial is the one studying the Form of Subscription, about which I have already written about here and re-examined in light of some overtures.

Continued: CRC Synod 2008: Part 2

I decided to go on a trek into the local subdivision to see what I may. I went on foot, an increasingly unpopular means of transportation.

In about two hours there, I saw maybe ten people. Perhaps this is because of it being a Sunday afternoon, but I find their ability to hide more than a little impressive.

I noticed there were there churches in the area; all were evangelical and of some size. Two were right beside each other. The other was a five-minute drive away, with no sidewalk leading to it. How is that for fostering a sense of Christian unity? Last time I checked, a car ride is just inviting meeting new people. (sarcasm intended).

But I see what the first issue is. Somehow all these people need to be convinced to get out of their little boxes.

Todd Hiestand, in this paper as posted on his blog makes an excellent exposition of the challenge of the suburban environment for ministry. He first describes the concept of the “missional church”, and shows that a very important context for a missional church is suburbia. He notes (though maybe not this strongly) that several values of the suburban dream are antithetical to Christian beliefs, namely individualism, escapism, and especially consumerism. He details four of the major missions of the church in this environment: rejecting individualism, deconstructing comfort, confronting consumerism, and pursuing justice.

He pulled a few of his quotes from Albert Hsu, who blogs here.

I live very near a very large all-suburban area, and my church is situated within; I am looking into the ideas others have had to work to the benefit of this rather spiritually barren place, thus this interests me greatly. Any pointers to elsewhere are very welcome; as of now I know very little about this.

[edit: I mistakenly attributed the post to Alan Roxburgh instead of Todd Hiestand.]

[edit 2: I linked to Hiestand's blog instead of a repost by someone else.]

I have attempted to research the movement known as the emerging church. This movement seeks to create a church that is relevant and engaging in our postmodern society, eschewing the traditional paradigms of what a church is. In my searches, I found an example of such church in Portland. It is called the Evergreen Community.

Like most churches, they meet every Sunday morning. Unlike many churches (some of which might be horrified at this concept), they meet in a pub. They explain that this location is indeed central to their mission link)

Why do you meet in a pub? Well, it’s pretty cheap  Honestly, our desire was to do our worship gatherings in a place that was both affordable and that fit with our philosophy of involvement in the life of the city of Portland. Also, being accessible to those we are trying to integrate into our community was pretty high on the list… And the pub does all that. It really breaks down barriers for people who wouldn’t think about walking into a more traditional church building. It has the added benefit of tending to keep away those who probably wouldn’t fit with our community anyway and might feel more at home in a more “traditional” community.

They describe what typically goes on therein:

A welcome by someone wherein we talk about an aspect of the community- one of our core values or something we are trying to do or be.

We’ll have a few moments of quiet, centering prayer… often accompanied by a reading (usually the whole group, in unison) of a Psalm.

After that, the fun begins…

We generally work through books of the Bible, but occasionally spend some time focusing on different topics. But even when we’re covering a topic, we tend to base it on a section of Scripture- we tend to work verse by verse through the whole passage.

And we talk a lot. For us, the sermon is (at least this is the ideal) the work of the community. We are teaching each other. Whoever is leading that morning still has a role in keeping things on track, doing the majority of the talking, but we do our darndest to get others talking to each other as well. In this way, as a community, we wrestle with the Scriptures.

We prefer this dialogical approach over the more traditional monologue of one person speaking sermons and feel it helps people learn and stay involved better.

However, they emphasize that their Sunday worship is definitely not the extent of their church. They have a set of core values listed, which make their priorities clear. If I can attempt to summarize these:

1.  Mission - The church is set up to be a mission to others - “we are here for the church which is here for the world”.
2. Justice - “The Evergreen Community aims to be a group of people who honor God the way that He wants to be honored, not necessarily in the way that is most comfortable or convenient for us. And that means actually doing something for the poor, because that’s what God wants, even if it pulls us far outside of our comfort zones.”
3. Community - The church “experience” is to move in a progression. Only at the beginning are we to be necessarily concerned with whether the church is something for us; it is imperative that progress beyond that to being something for other people.
4. Hope - “Drawing a picture for those we meet of who they could be, of the person God created them to be… and rather than pushing them towards that out of guilt or obligation, pulling them towards it out a sense of love and hope.”
5. History - “We also want to see ourselves not as a disconnected community, but as a group of people who stand in the stream of something much larger than ourselves: the Church down through history. As a result, we want to look back to that history and draw inspiration, resources and role models from it, while recognizing that we aren’t necessarily bound by it.”

And their community is fostered by their smaller size (I think about 130 people). They reflect this attitude like this:

Will you become a mega church and sell out? Our vision from the beginning has been to remain small as a community but grow through multiplication. Our goal is not to build one large church dynasty because it becomes impossible to remain personal and non-programmatic. Therefore, we seek to remain small enough as a community to where we can know and take care of one another, but at the same time we seek to grow through continually starting new communities where more people can gather and seek to love and serve each other and the neighborhood in which we meet and live.

The Emerging Church is something that interests me greatly; I shall in this too continue my research.

There is some debate in the Christian Reformed Church, (CRC) of which I am a member, concerning the Form of Subscription. If you do not follow any church politics, this post may be a bit foreign.

Confessional churches, like the CRC, have a set of standards by which they are guided. There are some distinct advantages to this – orthodoxy can be judged easily, the heritage of the chuch can be maintained, core beliefs do not change from church to church, and unity is generally fostered.

In the CRC, officebearers, ministers, and professors of theology need to sign a document called the Form of Subscription (FoS) to indicate they subscribe to the doctrinal standards of the CRC – the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the Canons of Dordt. An analogue of this form is a necessary component of a confessional church.

The current debate concerns the content of the form. The synodical committee studying this form (pdf) identified two principles underlying the debate:

1. “… A church’s identity and mission arise out a specific heritage.” (1)
2. “… A regulatory instrument is needed to keep us orthodox.” (1)

The first point, the report presents, the CRC as a whole holds to. It is recognized that the three doctrinal standards are the expression of a particular heritage, a certain way of interpreting Scripture, out of which the CRC has become what it is and done what it does. The leadership of the CRC need to be aware of this heritage to preserve the church’s character and mission.

The second point, the report says, “is increasingly being called into question.” (1)

I would be inclined to disagree with that. I have not heard anyone calling for the abolition of such a “regulatory device” (i.e. the FoS). Rather, I think the aversion to the current FoS is due to its apparent strength.

For by signing the current Form of Subscription, one states they will (in summary):

1. Claim the doctrinal standards fully agree with the Word of God.
2. Not contradict the standards in any way.
3. Reject and refute claims that contradict the standards.
4. Present any difficulties with standards to church leaders.
5. Give explanation of views on an article of the standards to church leaders if asked.
6. Submit to authority of church when dealing with difficulty, with the right of appeal given.

At first glance, it appears to be a more than slightly iron-fisted solution to the problem. Are the doctrinal standards on the same plane of truth as Scripture? May one not disagree with the standards in the least bit? What if the church doesn’t happen to like someone’s valid views and removes them from office?

A more thought-out approach sees that the intention of the Form is not to silence and condemn dissenters, but to make sure the church has the right to deal with true heresy. This is clear especially in Synod 1976’s additions to the commentary on Article 5 of the Church Order. (pdf of the whole thing) But the tone of the document does lead otherwise.

The report cites a few incidences where this is causing problems. A survey by Rev. Ken Nydam revealed that many churches were concerned that the FoS was no longer relevant to the contemporary situation. (3) Fleetwood CRC in British Columbia overtured Synod to examine the form “on the grounds that many churches in that classis no longer used the FOS because many individuals had difficulty signing it.” (3)

Therefore, I agree also that revision of the FoS is necessary and beneficial. By revising this document, the intended meaning would be made much clearer.

The committee also took the opportunity, per Synod’s mandate, to update some elements of the form, notably including reference to Our World Belongs To God.

The proposed new form (page 8 of the report), I believe, expresses this meaning excellently. It is immediately clear, through the language of “covenant” and the positive tone of the form, that it is a positive tool to ensure orthodoxy and keep the church continuing in its historically-grounded direction

(Though, if I could offer a suggestion, the meaning of “submit to its judgement” in the context of the fourth paragraph is unclear.)