Near-Sighted Pilots

I want to begin this post by saying that I don’t want to write it. I have been working on other, more enjoyable writing projects. However, when the official publication of the Christian Reformed Church decides to publish an article like “Where Have They Gone?” (February 21,2014), a muddled push for rethinking the denomination’s response to homosexuality, I felt the need to offer a response.

I use the word ‘muddled’ in describing this article because it never identifies its real target with any sort of clarity. It speaks about the church’s position on homosexuality in paragraph four, but then in paragraph five the author takes aim at the response of pastors and the congregational response in paragraph eight. Which is it? Based on the concluding remarks about welcoming back same-sex couples I will assume that the denominational position is being challenged, and not just congregational responses.

Further, the author doesn’t provide any significant exegetical support for his conclusion (the treatment of John 10:10, regardless of the conclusion, is simply poor reasoning and dismal hermeneutics) and provides a smattering of underdeveloped arguments. Readers, regardless of the positions they take, should join together in hoping that The Banner elevates its publication standards.

In response to “Where Have They Gone”, I’d like to isolate the premises of one of its arguments: the argument based on feelings of exclusion. I’ll evaluate each premise and offer some concluding remarks.

Premise 1:  The church’s current position on homosexuality has resulted in many gay men and women leaving the church and rejecting God because they have felt excluded [from paragraph six].

I would not disagree over this paragraph. I’m sure anecdotal evidence could be gathered in support of it. Rather than disagree, I’d like to express grief that this is so. I think all Christians should be grieved anytime anyone—gay, straight, transgender, black, white, old and married, young and single—walks away from the church and from God. Sometimes, probably far too often, the conduct of the church towards those who experience same-sex attraction—beyond its doctrinal position—has exacerbated feelings of isolation and confusion. This too is to be grieved and repented of. A sincere apology, however, does not mean one has to concede their principled position.

Premise 2:  A position that causes anyone to feel excluded is wrong and should be changed [implied from paragraph eleven].

If I knew the author of the article, I’d want to clarify whether they thought this supplied premise was a fair one. I’ve supplied it based on paragraphs five, six, and eleven, where the author expresses his or her frustration specifically over the feelings of rejection that have been felt and concludes that it is time to “welcome back its gay sons and daughters, along with their spouses and children”. The article would have been stronger if the author had been clearer about what exactly is problematic about the church’s position on homosexuality—is it that it provokes feelings of rejection in those who experience same sex attraction? The article seems to suggest two reasons for the rethinking the denominational stance on homosexuality: emotional distress caused and cultural shifts.

If the argument is that the position should be changed because the church’s position causes emotional distress, then I think we can work from premise 2. Premise two has some obvious problems. No one can possibly hold to it consistently (premise 2 makes me feel excluded and therefore it is wrong and should be changed! It’s self-defeating). Nor should anyone want to hold it! Suppose an airline company has a policy that only people with 20/20 vision are able to pilot their planes; unfortunately, this makes a near-sighted, jittery applicant feel left out. Does that mean that the airline’s policy is wrong and should be changed? Of course not! And if it ever did mean the airline should change its policy let me know—I’ll return to Scotland by boat!

But, someone might object, applying to fly a plane is hardly the same as wanting to feel included in a voluntary association like a church. What if we narrow the premise?

Mod. premise 2:  Any association that holds a position that causes feelings of exclusion should change their position.

But again, there are problems with this premise. Suppose that John wants to join his local association of Democrats. Rather oddly though, John is for smaller government, less taxes, and fewer restrictions on firearms—positions that immediately clash with the values of the Democratic Party. John expresses his disagreement to the local leaders. Should they recognize they’ve upset someone and change their policies? Will they? No, because presumably they have good reasons for holding the positions that they do. They should explain their reasons to John, but they’re under no moral obligation to change their policies.

Premise 2 is untenable.

Conclusion: The church’s current position on homosexuality, as it makes some people feel excluded, is wrong and should be changed.

Premise 2 appears self-defeating, and would make the world an impossibly unpredictable place to live in (with policies shifting as moods swung… I can’t imagine what that would do to any number of hormonal high school student clubs!). Therefore, the conclusion is not obtained.

To be clear: the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) does not exclude men and women who experience same-sex attraction (at least they shouldn’t!). They and I are extended the same invitation to find grace in the cross of Christ, to participate in the life of the church, and share in ministries of the church in the world. The CRC does say, in keeping with Scripture, that homosexual practice is off-limits, just as it says women who are not my wife are off-limits to me. Gay and straight alike are called to forgo or deny certain desires when we are joined to Christ through faith. Difficult though it may be, the Holy Spirit helps us in our weakness. It is exactly in this dying to our own desires and being raised to new life and obedience in Christ that we come to experience life and life abundant. 

For those who are looking for a helpful resource dealing with a Christian perspective on same-sex attraction, I’d recommend Sam Allberry’s little book, “Is God Anti-Gay?” Allberry is a pastor who experiences same-sex attraction. In his writing he is both compassionate and thoughtful. If you’d like to read a review or two first, you can do so here and here.

Two Strands of Reformed Theology

I found Justin Holcomb's article on the Dutch and Scottish streams of Reformed theology to be very helpful. You can read his article at The Resurgence or as it was reposted at Justin Taylor's website.

A book that I read last year on the subject was Jamie Smith's Letters to a Young Calvinist. Smith is a professor at Calvin College. That biographical detail alone places him somewhere within the Dutch Reformed, Kuyperian tradition. His small book discusses the streams of Reformed thought and discusses his entry into Reformed theology through the front doors of the Scottish tradition before coming to sit with the Dutch thinkers like Kuyper, Bavinck, and Berkhof. My own experience of Reformed theology has been, to this point, the opposite. I was immersed in the Dutch Reformed tradition since infancy, but in young adulthood have been drawn to those in the Scottish tradition: John Owen, Richard Baxter, Jonathan Edwards, and other Puritan figures. 

For those of you who are interested, here is also a link to Holcomb's introductory article on Abraham Kuyper. 

Boiling down the Belhar Brouhaha

Last Tuesday night, my wife and I sat down with a bowl of popcorn to watch the live webcast of the Christian Reformed Church's Synod 2012. Admittedly, we're "special" like that. I can think of only two groups of people that voluntarily to watch a a series of (seemingly) futile exchanges back and forth by a bunch of Dutch people-- fans of the CRC Synod and Dutch soccer fans. 

In fact though, the 2012 CRC Synod was not an exercise in futility between Dutch people because (a) though the Vander-whatchamacallits and the Van-whatever-smas were numerous, they were by no means the only ethnicity represented (an encouraging thing to see!) and (b) Synod was not futile. 

The discussion on the Belhar Confession-- and its place in the Christian Reformed Church-- lasted close to three hours. Discussion was back and forth, and though tense, the debate remained civil. In the end, responding to the recommendations of a synodical advisory committee, the delegates of Synod voted to create the category of "Ecumenical Faith Declaration" and voted to make the Belhar Confession the first document of that kind. 

The creation of the "Ecumenical Faith Declaration" category-- and the subsequent deposit of the Belhar into said category-- represents a compromise. On the one hand, the Belhar is given an official status within the Christian Reformed Church; however, it is not given the same official and binding status as the Heidelberg Catechism, Belgic Confession, and Canons of Dort. It means that the Christian Reformed Church has, in a qualified manner, received the Belhar, but it does not demand its office bearers (elders, deacons, pastors, professors) to "sincerely believe that all the articles and points of doctrine [in the Belhar Confession]... agree with the Word of God", as the Form of Subscription says. Something many could not say.  

For some proponents of the Belhar, this may comes as a disappointment because the Christian Reformed Church could not fully endorse the teachings of the Belhar. Many who had sought its adoption had argued for the importance of standing, in unity, alongside brothers and sisters in the Uniting Reformed Church in South Africa. This was the reason the motion was to adopt the Belhar, instead of creating a new document that spoke to racial reconciliation.

As the situation currently stands, it appears not much has changed. Those who sought the Belhar will make use of it in their congregations, their liturgy, and their teaching; those who opposed it, will either ignore it or (hopefully) find other ways to speak against racism and pointless divisions that will satisfy their conscience. Some will function as though the Belhar was a confession, others will not. 

The positive outcomes of Synod's decision is, for now, the visible unity of the Christian Reformed Church is preserved and many in good conscience can still sign the Form of Subscription. 

A couple summary news articles on the Belhar happenings are available from the Aquila Report and The Banner. 

Belhar Resources: J. Todd Billings on the Belhar

Again, I want to refer you to material on the Belhar Confession found on Kevin DeYoung's blog. This time he interacts with the work of J. Todd Billings of Western Theological Seminary. Billings' recent book on believers' union with Christ criticizes the Belhar's phrasing that "God, in a world full of injustice and enmity, is in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged.”

Belhar Resources: A Belhar Alternative

Not Another Confession in the CRC: A Belhar “Alternative” by Aaron Vriesman, pastor of North Blendon CRC in Hudsonville, MI

 
Pastor Aaron Vriesman, of the Christian Reformed Church, creates a modified edition of the Belhar Confession that he believes more adequately speaks to the Biblical vision of justice and reconciliation. Vriesman’s alternative edition highlights the two problems with the Belhar. In places it goes beyond the Biblical vision of justice (e.g. that God is, in a special way, the God of the poor and oppressed) and at other times it does not adequately express the grounds for Biblical justice (the reason for Vriesman’s additions). What is most notable about Vriesman’s additions is that he is attempting to compensate for the Belhar’s failure to clearly ground the Christian’s mandate for justice and racial reconciliation in the salvific work of Christ. Here are several additions that Vriesman makes to this end (** denotes addition, [ ] subtraction): 

**– that God sent his only begotten Son to suffer and die on the cross to accomplish this justice and peace (Matt. 12:18-21; Isa. 42:1-4); that as sinless man and perfect God, Jesus Christ’s suffering and death on behalf of sinful humanity amounts to the greatest injustice of all time (Isa. 53:5-6, 8-10; Luke 20:9-18, 23:41; Acts 8:32-35);**

**– that God, by the cross of Christ, condemns all injustice in sinful humanity (Rom. 8:3); that God, by the resurrection of Christ, shows his salvation to triumph over injustice (Php. 2:5-11; Isa. 53:11-12);**

**– that God desires and calls people from all nations, tribes, backgrounds, ranks and status to his salvation through Christ (1Tim. 2:1-4; Rev. 14:6); that all believers everywhere are called to face injustice for the sake of Christ, not seeking their own justice (Deut. 32:35; Rom. 12:19), but taking up the cross and following Christ in suffering injustice (Matt. 16:24; 2Tim. 1:8; 1Pet. 2:19-23, 4:1), thereby considering it an honor to suffer injustice for the sake of Christ (Matt. 5:10-12; Acts 5:41; 1Pet. 4:12-19);**

In the below paragraph, Vriesman adds "in Jesus Christ" to stress that the unity of God's church is the unity of those who are effectually called by God and united to Christ through faith. He also subtracts the misleading clause "anything which threatens this unity may have no place in the church and must be resisted". While the apostle Paul does desire the unity of the body, he also calls Christians (and especially leaders in the Church) to defend the faith and to turn away from those who promote error (e.g. 1 Timothy 6 and 2 Thessalonians 3:6). Unity is never at the expense of the truth, something that the Belhar fails to make clear.

"that this unity **in Jesus Christ** must become visible so that the world may believe that separation, enmity and hatred [between people and groups] is sin which Christ has already conquered, and accordingly that [anything which threatens this unity may have no place in the church and must be resisted] **the church is called to focus on Jesus Christ who is the head of his church and the sufficient healer of all human divisions** (John 17:20-23 **; Matt. 10:2-4**)"

While no changes will actually be made to the Belhar by the Christian Reformed Church, one may still find Vriesman's exercise instructive.

Belhar Resources: A CRC Congregation's Proposal to Not Adopt the Belhar

Overture to Synod 2012: Not Adopt the Belhar as a 4^th confession in the CRC by First Christian Reformed Church (of Byron Center) 

This overture to Synod is a thoughtful proposal from a local church congregation. I think it is particularly helpful in pointing out that the Belhar addresses an important problem, though not at its root. Racism is a reprehensible sin that ought to be fought with Spirit-given strength; however, it is not our alienation from each other that is the root problem. Our root problem is our alienation from God, which produces the corollary problem, alienation from each other:

The first concern is with the Belhar Confession’s content. The content of the Belhar is limited in scope compared to our other standards, the Three Forms of Unity. It’s true as Lyle Bierma points out that “Not all confessions…have the same scope.” (Calvin Theological Seminary Forum, Fall 2010, p.7.) The Belgic Confession covers many topics that the Canons of Dort and the Heidelberg Catechism do not. The Canons of Dort are narrower in focus than the other two. But while not all cover the same breadth of material, each one is a summary of the gospel and the Reformed Christian faith. The Belhar Confession, however, fails to meet that standard. It addresses gospel implications without much explanation of the gospel itself. How can a gospel explanation be missing when it is the gospel alone which has the power to stop racism? Racism is a blood sin which can only be defeated by the power of the blood of Christ. Racism is not first a social issue but a spiritual one. Our deepest problem is not that we are alienated from one another, but that we are alienated from God. Only when we address our alienation from God can we find the answer for alienation from others. The gospel alone has the power to conquer the roots of racial hatred such as pride, greed, hate, and guilt. Yet, gospel content is in large measure missing from the Belhar Confession. The result is that it is left to be interpreted by our other confessions, which makes it submissive to them and not adequate to be considered as a confession with equal authority. Even worse, the Belhar Confession potentially leaves itself and our denomination open to gospel reinterpretation. Considering the absence of clear gospel definition it is no coincidence as John Cooper indicates that the Belhar Confession allows readings from the perspectives of Reformed orthodoxy as well as the progressive social gospel, and various forms of liberation theology. (Copper, Affirm the Belhar? p. 11) How can a document open to so many perspectives serve as a confession?

Further, adoption of the Belhar would fail to preserve the unity it affirms.

One final concern regarding the Belhar Confession deals with consensus. Confessions are designed to create unity. Unity is best achieved when an issue arises from the bottom up or from the grass roots. Adoption of the Belhar Confession, however, feels more like a top down approach. We have been told that this is the “gift of the Belhar.” How can you refuse a gift? The burden of proof, it seems, does not stand with those who wish to adopt it but with those who do not. This is not a path to unity. Rather than unifying our denomination, adopting this confession may lead to unnecessary division.

Belhar Resources: Kevin DeYoung (of the Reformed Church in America) on the Belhar Confession

Since the Belhar Confession is up for approval as a fourth confession in the Christian Reformed Church at the denominational Synod in Ancaster, Ontario, I thought it was fitting to put our ear to several voices objecting to the adoption of the Belhar as a confessional document. Stay tuned through out this week for more resources related to the Belhar. 

The Belhar Confession: Yea or Nay? By Kevin DeYoung.

Written in May 2009 prior to the Reformed Church in America’s adoption of the Belhar Confession. While affirming the theme that God’s people should not be divided by race or ethnicity, DeYoung probes the problematic language of the Belhar:

“…there are a few lines that cannot be supported by Scripture. Here’s just one example: We believe that God, in a world full of injustice and enmity, is in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged. To be sure, the Bible is full of examples of God’s heart for the poor and the oppressed. But it goes too far to say he is in a special way a God to them. The covenant promise—I will be your God and you will be my people (language Belhar echoes here)—is for those who put their faith in God, not simply those who are poor or oppressed. In fact, Abraham, the man of faith and the model for all covenantal blessing (Gal. 3:5-9), was especially rich (Gen. 13:5-6). Is God less of God to him than to the poor man who rejects Christ? Was God a God to Job, Zacchaeus, Mary and Martha in a less special way because they were well-to-do? There are plenty of verses to support the contention that God cares for the poor and oppressed, but are there any verses to suggest that he is their covenantal God apart from faith? Or any verses to suggest that God looks on the believing poor with more favor than the believing non-poor? God does not show partiality to the poor, nor does he defer to the great (Lev. 19:15).”

DeYoung also points to the plurality of applications that have been seen to emerge out of the Belhar as a confusion-creating problem.

Belhar Debate

Dr. John Cooper (Calvin Theological Seminary) and Rev. Peter Borgdoff (former director of the Christian Reformed Church) debate the Belhar Confession at a denominational event in Illinois.

Belhar Confession

In one week the Christian Reformed Church will gather in Ancaster, Ontario for Synod. This Synod is anticipated (or dreaded) because the CRC will dash itself upon the rocks of the Belhar Confession. The Belhar Confession was written in response to the horror of South African apartheid. While the church stood, amidst the racial chaos with blood on its hands, the Belhar was penned. Now, the Christian Reformed Church will decide whether the Belhar should be adopted as the denomination's fourth confessional document.

The Belhar is intended to be a statement of Christian unity, but the grim reality is that it threatens to tear the CRC apart. I will be posting (or referring to) a number of resources this week that speak to the Belhar Confession. In the meanwhile, please pray fervently that God will guide the discussions of Synod and that He will provide a way to maintain both the unity and the doctrinal integrity of the denomination.

Here is the text of the Belhar Confession. Be sure to read it.

Kevin DeYoung: The Reformed Church in America and Homosexuality

Kevin DeYoung is someone that you would do well to read. He is one of the sharpest, smartest, and most articulate voices in the Church today. He is a pastor and an author. Matt Chandler also said of him at April 2011's Gospel Coalition Conference in Chicago, "You are perhaps the smartest person in the world. I am too dumb to talk to you."

DeYoung is a pastor in the Reformed Church in America (RCA). The denomination that I belong to, the Christian Reformed Church (CRC), split from the RCA in 1857. Yet, in the words of the RCA's website, "The Christian Reformed Church and the Reformed Church in America can be considered as either close cousins or separated siblings, having once been one denomination (the Dutch Reformed Church)". Close ties remain between the CRC and RCA and, as such, what occurs in one denomination has consequence for the other (for instance, RCA's adoption of the Belhar Confession).  

Therefore, it is of great importance that members of the CRC pay close attention to how the RCA is addressing the issue of homosexuality. While the CRC struggles to find the voice of biblical faithfulness and courage, CRC members (and the Church of Jesus Christ as a whole) would be foolish to turn a blind-eye to the response that will come-- either by action or non-action-- in the RCA. 

I strongly encourage you to read the week-long series that Kevin DeYoung will be posting on his blog concerning the RCA and Homosexuality. 

Monday- A Series on the RCA and Homosexuality 
Tuesday – Homosexuality and the RCA: A Call for Action, Consistency, and Faithfulness (Part 1)
Wednesday – Homosexuality and the RCA: A Call for Action, Consistency, and Faithfulness (Part 2)
Thursday – An Overture Regarding Homosexuality and the RCA
Friday – Does the Heidelberg Catechism Have Anything to Say About Homosexuality?

Most importantly, be in prayer for the RCA and CRC. Pray that they may be given wisdom, love, and courage in its address of homosexuality.

Missional Ministry: Eating and the Word

This article appeared in The Banner a while back. It is an example of how a Christian Reformed Church is on mission to share Jesus while sharing a meal.

Sunday Evening Church Services

As far as I am aware, Sunday evening worship services have long been part of the Christian Reformed tradition. Typically, in Christian Reformed congregations, the evening service was reserved for preaching through the Heidelberg Catechism. With the Heidelberg Catechism having been divided into 52 Lord's Days, the evening service ensured that the whole breadth of core doctrines were being taught to the congregation (and not just the ones the pastor fancied). While the message and its authority were ultimately derived from Scripture, the order of the topics was determined by the Heidelberg. 

Now, the Church I grew up in cancelled the Sunday evening service around ten years ago. Admittedly, my childhood memories of the service was that it was sparsely attended and that my parents (usually) had to drag us kids there. The only highlight, in my boyish mind, was that sometimes they would take song requests. That was a whole lot of power for a young boy to have in church! 

After the Sunday evening service was discontinued, our pastor taught some adult education courses on various topics (e.g. the Holy Spirit, leadership, etc.). This was a more informal setting that seemed to appeal to more members of the congregation. 

I have grown accustomed to having Sunday nights free. My wife and I quite enjoy it. We often use that time to relax together and have a special time of devotions and prayer. It is a restful Sabbath before the busyness of the week starts up. 

Kevin DeYoung recently posted his reasons why churches should keep the practice of having a Sunday evening service. He offers practical and theological reasons for maintaining the tradition. Some of the reasons I found especially considerable were: 

• If the preaching is a means of grace where God has promised to reveal himself to us, the church should be willing to make available more opportunities (and take advantage of available opportunities) to experience this grace.
• A healthy church is one that has a hunger to hear from God's Word, to learn from it, to be taught from it, and to be shaped by it. Hungry and healthy churches will desire to hear biblical preaching a second time in a Sunday.
• An evening service will encourage the pastor to spend more time studying the Bible. Also, an evening service will allow other members of the congregation to participate in the worship service in a smaller setting. In particular, an evening service would allow elders an opportunity to practice teaching sound doctrine to the congregation. 

DeYoung admits that there is no command in Scripture, "Thou Shalt Worship on Sunday Evenings at 5 p.m.". However, I would encourage you to weigh his arguments for the benefits of an evening service and let me know: are you in favor of a Sunday Evening Service? Why or why not? Do you find any of Kevin DeYoung's arguments convincing? Have you thought of these reasons before?