The CRC & Future Fraternal Relations

I have some CRC people who read this site. Which stands to reasons since I am an ordained minister in the CRC. I have cross posted (something I very seldom do) a post here from another CRC pastor who was a delegate to the CRC Synod this year. The reason I cross posted it is that I wanted this news to come from somebody else, since I suspect that sometimes this chicken little isn’t heard because he screams so much. I have put in bold relief some points that I think need to be emphasized.

Since I reported late last night I’m reporting early today. The big topic of the day (all day in fact) has been our relationship to the Protestant Churches of the Netherlands. For many out there you may say, “Why would that be a big deal??” Well, there is a huge historical connection between the CRC and the PCN (which was formerly the GKN, our “mother” denomination, so to speak). Anyway, the Inter-church Relations Committee was asking that we establish full ecclesiastical fellowship with the PCN. When it was the GKN (which merged with two other denominations to form the PCN) we restricted our relationship because they began ordaining practicing homosexuals and there are some questions on how they view Christ. Now, under the CRC’s new ecumenical charter which promotes broader and less restricted relationships, the IRC would like those restrictions removed.

With underlying practices such as those, you can imagine there was a ton of debate. That began in the Advisory Committee as they ended up with both a majority and minority report basically as follows:

* Majority Report: enter into full ecclesiastical fellowship with the PCN
* Minority Report: enter into a relationship of dialogue with the PCN

Full ecclesiastical fellowship is a deeper relationship which allows for fellowship at the Lord’s Supper together and exchange of pulpits. Dialogue means just that – a talking relationship. So do we overlook these differences in the spirit of Christian unity or do we continue to send the message we’ve been sending them that their practice is sinful – but we’re willing to maintain contact in the hopes that God’s Word will prevail in the future.

Over the course of the debate, it came out from a poll done in the Netherlands that 14% of the pastors in the PCN consider themselves atheist or agnostic. Yes, you read that right. (Further,)39% of PCN pastors cannot deny the statement that God is a figment of human thought… eek!

But it was also reported that the percentage of atheist pastors is going down and the number of orthodox pastors is rising – so God is bringing some hope there… Praise the Lord!

Procedurally, there were a couple of recommendations. The first was to declare the restricted relationship with the GKN moot in respect to the PCN because it was in effect a new denomination. That passed – so we didn’t have any officially relationship with the PCN. Next the majority report to establish full fellowship was tabled almost immediately and the minority report taken up. That was debated for a long time but then defeated by less that 10 votes. The majority report was taken off the table and discussed for quite a while again, but that was also defeated, but by a little more than 10 votes. So back to the drawing board – and for a few hours today we have no relationship with the PCN – the committee is meeting to come up with a third option – however, our new ecumenical charter doesn’t have a third option… so what’ll they come up with next???

More than the specific relationship to this church is what does this mean for the CRC. Does hopping in bed with the PCN give defacto credence to homosexual practice and loose Christology?? Or is it our opportunity to be a witness to them? I guess if we look back on the 20 or 30 years of strained relationship we’ve had – trying to be a witness to them – have we had more effect on them for orthodoxy or they on us for liberalism? An unrestricted relationship would only give us more of the same.

On top of that, what does our relationship with them convey to our local congregations?? To other denominations (the fraternal delegates from the CRC in Nigeria were fairly vocal about this in the gallery)… to our communities?? Lots of implications.

I won’t go through all the debates, but the parallel I drew was to I Corinthians 5:9-13.

“I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner—not even to eat with such a person. For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”

If that doesn’t speak here, it doesn’t speak anywhere. Of course, we speak the truth in love… but we still speak the truth. But does God’s Word mean that much to these kind of debates?? By now you know my answer to that question… maybe I should make that a motion on the floor to see what Synod thinks. More later….

A few comments from Bret

1.) One must keep in mind that the three denominations in the Netherlands that merged to form the new denomination (PCN) each individually before the merger affirmed homosexuality in one way or another. Does a new denomination that is comprised from three denominations that affirmed homosexuality in one way or another end up not affirming it, itself?

2.) One wonders if the putative increase of ‘orthodox’ ministers in the PCN is anecdotal. Is there hard evidence that shows this?

3.) Note it was the bureaucracy of the CRC (inter-church relations) that asked for fraternal relations with the PCN. What does that tell us?

4.)Note also it was the majority report from the bureaucrats (advisory committee) that recommended full ecclesiastic fellowship with the PCN.

postscript — The 2008 Synod dealt with this issue by asking their bureaucratic structure (the one that gave the majority report recommendation to restore full ecclesiastical fellowship) to see if it could come up with a relationship that is not full ecclesiastical fellowship but is more than what is referred to as “churches in dialogue.”

The motion that passed on Thursday afternoon comes out of a desire of the CRC “to develop and maintain a relationship with the PCN that … does not obscure the seriousness of the issues that led to restrictions being placed on the GKN prior to formation of the PCN – issues that appear to continue today in the PCN,” says the IRC’s recommendation.

The Sin Of To Much Knowledge

Below is an exchange with a chap I’ve known for quite some time who lives in the Mid-Michigan area. He is pentecostal and ana-baptist. There are a great number of these kinds of people in Mid-Michigan. The two of us, for a few weeks, tried to do a Bible study together along with other men from Mid-Michigan but they didn’t like the Reformed faith while others of us, though trying, weren’t to hip on their pentecostal, ana-baptist explanations of texts. I have kicked myself and prayed often about my failure to get through to this group. The Lord Christ caused our paths to cross again so perhaps the Lord Christ intends to keep the conversation going, though it still doesn’t look like it is going to go anywhere.

Bret,

Thanks for the link to your web-site, unfortunately it’s far too intellectual for a simple man like me.

Pete,

Well, the simple can at least aspire to be more intellectual and work to that end. As a simple man myself that is what I have always tried to practice and it is what I’ve tried to teach my simple children to practice.

Cheers,

Bret

Bret,

I don’t aspire to be more intellectual, but rather less. I aspire to have the Lord impart Godly wisdom which is easily entreated. Knowledge and intellectualism are dangerously seductive, and lead many astray, “Ever learning, and never able to come to the knowledge of the truth.”

My Lord and Master was criticized for not being learned and yet exemplified Love, Truth and Wisdom such that no “learned” man could answer anything. My pursuit is the Love of Truth, and Jesus said that He is the Truth. So if I pick up knowledge and understanding along the way to the knowledge of the Truth, so be it, but they will never be the things I seek after nor love.

Pete

* The god you make is the god you must defend;
* the God that made you needs no defense.

Pete,

Let’s see… we agree that each of us consider ourselves simple men.

We each agree that we need to pursue truth.

Now, mind telling me how we simple men pursue truth apart from the intellect? Does truth come in through our pores? Does the Holy Spirit give us knowledge, understanding, and wisdom apart from the faculty of the mind that God created to absorb those things? Does the Holy Spirit just kind of pour knowledge, understanding, and wisdom in us the way I pour gravy over my mashed potatoes?

The Holy Scriptures teach, ‘above all, get understanding.’ Now I freely concede that is not the exact same thing as ‘be intellectual’ but one can not get understanding, or gain wisdom apart from the intellect. Also, I fully agree that intellectual men can be worthless pagans but it is not their intelligence, nor the amount of what they know that render them pagan but rather because they seek to keep their knowledge in defiance of the God of the Bible and His Christ. This is where their intelligence really reveals its ignorance since nothing can be truly known without presupposing the God of the Bible.

Also, Pete, you might want to be careful about drawing to many parallels between you and ‘your master.’ He had the advantage of being Divine. You don’t.

Scripture teaches we are to ‘be transformed according to the renewing of our minds.’ We are to have ‘this mind in us which was also in Christ Jesus.’ We are to ‘take every thought captive to make it obedient to Christ.’ That is every thought Pete, not excluding the intellectual thoughts. We are to Love God with all our MIND.

Frankly you are inhibiting your sanctification by seeking to place a false dichotomy between love of Jesus and love of knowledge. Jesus is King over all knowledge. If and when I learn anything it is because it comes from Him and it is His knowledge because He is Lord over it. It is precisely because of my Love for Jesus and my conviction that He is Lord over all knowledge that I seek to KNOW Him and make him known.

Quit with your pursuit of experience and come to know Jesus and love God with all your mind. God gives no extra brownie points of holiness to anyone for purposely being stupid just as he gives no extra brownie points for holiness to anyone for thinking that God will love them more if they are smarter.

Pete, the church is in desperate need for people who will once again love God with all their minds. That doesn’t mean that everyone needs to be a Rocket scientist but it does mean that from the pew to the pulpit all must seek to know what they believe and why they believe it and what they don’t believe and why they don’t believe it, as it applies to every area of life that they traverse. The church needs, perhaps more then any other time, intellects that approach the intellect of the Apostle Paul. Instead to many of our churches play to the lowest common denominator of base experience and reasonless emotion.

Finally, I fully agree that the intellect can become an idol. Perhaps this is what you mean by ‘intellectualism.’ Do you fully admit that the emotions or experience can become an idol so we end up with ‘experientialism’?

Well, I’m sure I’ve just confirmed, in your mind, my alleged arrogance. So be it. I am content to be considered a fool because I insist that people should be smart for Jesus.

I pray God that neither of us will fall to idols.

Cheers,

Bret

Stephen Mansfield’s Coming Book On Obama’s Faith

Steve Mansfield as written a book entitled “The Faith Of Barack Obama.” On his blog he complains that people are consigning him to the nether realm for writing this book. He claims that this is unjust since nobody has yet read the book. But, even given his blog explanation for the book, one wonders what Mr. Mansfield was thinking unless he intended to write a book telling us about the pagan faith of Barack Obama.

Before we get into that though, people need to realize that Mansfield is the same guy who wrote a book entitled, “The Faith Of George Bush.” Now, if Mansfield could, with a straight face, write a book finding the Christian faith of George Bush, what makes anyone think that he couldn’t similarly find the Christian faith of Barack Obama? If a guy can write a book telling me about that the beauty of Congressperson Nancy Pelosi, I suspect he can write a book telling me about the beauty of Senator Barbara Mikulski.

Mansfield starts his defense of by saying he wanted to take a “fairly objective look at how Obama came to faith.” The problem already, is that this assumes that Obama has come to faith. Can we really conclude that someone has come to faith who wants to violate with repeated regularity the 6th (support of abortion), 7th (support of homosexual civil unions) and 8th (wants to increase confiscatory taxation) commandments? The fact that Mansfield can suggest that Obama has come to faith raises questions about Mansfield’s clarity of understanding as it pertains to what it means to “have faith.”

Next Mansfield says that he believes that “Obama’s story of faith captures the current religious trends in America just as George W. Bush’s did five years ago when I wrote The Faith of George W. Bush.” Certainly nobody can disagree that it may be the case that Obama’s faith may capture the religious trends in America, but all that means is that the religious trends in America are decidedly not Christian, just as Obama’s faith, to date, is decidedly not Christian.

Mansfield then suggests that not having had a brain bypass he is interested in how ideas shape culture. Great! Many of us share that interest. The evidence of Mansfield having a brain bypass surgery comes to the fore though when he suggests that Obama’s ideas have a relation to Christian faith. That is almost as bad as suggesting that George Bush’s ideas have a relation to the Christian faith. When Mansfield makes these kind of correlations it is not a wonder that some people might question his Christian or conservative credentials.

Mansfield insists that in his book he was just trying to objectively understand and explain Obama. That is a noble undertaking, but it can be done without suggesting that there is anything Christian about the candidate. Indeed, one could write such a book by opening up declaring that,

“It is not my intent in this book to speak to Barack Obama’s faith. My intent instead is to simply try to explain and understand the man. I have come to my own conclusions regarding Obama’s faith but I want to allow the reader to come to their own conclusions as I explain and seek to understand the candidate. My book seeks to be even handed, so readers should expect to find here me giving Senator Obama every benefit of the doubt that I can. To give someone the benefit of the doubt should not be mistaken with agreeing with them even after the benefit of the doubt has been extended.”

It doesn’t look like Mansfield wrote that kind of book, therefore Mansfield’s head is being handed to him on a platter by much of his readership.

Finally Mansfield seems put off that people could be upset with him since in the book he plainly said he would not vote for Obama. Mansfield seems to think that whatever perceived favorable treatment he gave to Obama in the book would be finally negated by the omission that he could not vote for Obama. This communicates a lack of understanding on the part of Mansfield on how people are influenced. If I write something that can be taken as a favorable reflection on somebody, but finish by saying that I can’t vote for them, the effect may very well be that my written work provides a bridge for some people to cross to support the candidate even though I myself as the author might not be able to. Such a written work, could communicate how it would be understandable that Christians would vote for Obama and so could very well lead to be a work that would influence Christians to vote for Obama or at least make doing so seem reasonable.

Overall, I think the problem here is that you have a guy (Mansfield) writing a book about another guy’s Christian faith who is himself confused on what the Christian faith really is or looks like.

Baxter’s Psychological Testing For TRGM

Each of the candidates in training, including Baxter, were given an appointment, with the Transylvania Reformed Global Missions Psychologist, during their orientation week, in order to review the battery of personality tests that they had take before being accepted to TRGM.

When Baxter had received the test 6 months prior he decided to be a little proactive in his test taking. He knew a little bit about these tests having volunteered to be a ‘guinea pig’ for a older friend of his who was doing some Ph.D. work that required her to give some of these same kinds of tests to a control group. She had asked Baxter to be a part of her control group and he, wanting to help her, agreed with the stipulation that she explain to him a little bit how the tests ‘worked.’

“They are really not that difficult Baxter,” she offered when her agreed upon explanation finally came.

“The way these tests work is that they create a standard by compiling and collating responses that are received from those who take the tests. Once the results are compiled and collated those results are reified into numbers and percentages which are made the standard for future tests and test-takers.”

Baxter thought on that for a bit. Finally he responded,

“Doris, do I understand you to mean that it is the responses of people who take the test that end up becoming how average and normal are defined for future people who take the test?”

Doris replied affirmatively and went on to explain,

“Every time the tests are taken by somebody their results become part of the standard for what is being measured. So, for example, should we desire to be looking for obsessive compulsive behavior in people, we would find that in someone by looking at their answers that were in excess to whatever the compiled and collated answers from these tests would tell us.”

Baxter asked, “Doris, what if the tests were taken by a culture that was largely obsessive compulsive?”

“Well, I guess that nobody would be discovered to be obsessive compulsive then,” she replied.

“What if the tests were taken by a culture that was largely dysfunctional,” Baxter pressed.

“Baxter, I know what you’re getting at,” Doris replied. “This test does not provide answers that are anchored in absolutes. The norm in these tests is sliding according to those who take the test.”

Baxter repeated himself, “Doris, what if the tests were taken by a culture that was largely dysfunctional?”

“Well, I would think that normal people would be found to be abnormal since the norm would be established by the abnormal,” Doris finally answered.

“Thanks Doris,” Baxter said. “One more question Doris. As someone who is interested in this psychology stuff can you explain to me how this methodology doesn’t replace God’s Word as the standard with Man’s tests responses as the standard via his collective responses? In these tests we have gone from God’s Word the standard to man the standard. I mean God didn’t take the test and yet this methodology acts as if he did.”

“Baxter, that’s not a question,” said Doris, “that is a accusation.”

“And a damn good one” Baxter thought.

“It sure doesn’t seem like this psychology stuff has come a long way since it began by feeling the bumps on people’s heads,” Baxter said as he took his leave of Doris.

When Baxter had received the tests from TRGM he decided that he might be better safe than sorry about the results, since he had heard more then one horror story about people being rejected for the mission field due to their psychological tests results, so he visited a pagan friend of his across the street who worked as a Pharmaceutical Engineer at Pfizer and asked his buddy if he would take the psychological tests for Baxter under Baxter’s name.

Baxter’s neighbor loved to operate on a quid pro quo basis and so he asked Baxter,

“What will you give me?”

“Will a couple of six-packs be enough incentive,” Baxter asked.

“Sure,” Marc replied. “Should I take those tests before or after I polish off the six-packs” he asked capriciously.

“Better take them afterwards” Baxter said. “It’ll make for better test scores.”

The next day Baxter dropped off the tests with his name and information on it already filled out along with a couple six-packs of Budweiser.

Baxter knew that Marc was an unbeliever. He had spoke many times to Marc about Marc’s harem of revolving girlfriends and had warned him that all those uppers that Marc took to keep going were eventually going to catch up with him. Marc hadn’t yet hit the wall of his sin but Baxter knew the time was coming when Marc would be willing to listen to him with more interest. Until that time Baxter kept up a sincere friendship.

Baxter figured, given Doris’ explanation about the tests, that a comparatively well adjusted pagan like Marc would score better on these exams then somebody like himself who was really quite counter-cultural.

And so on the day after Baxter had given him the tests Marc showed up with both the completed tests and the Bud empties to return. As he handed the tests and the empties to Baxter, Marc offered;

“That was a strange test.”

Baxter smiled, took the completed tests and the empties from Marc, and good naturedly said, “Yeah, I know, that’s why I asked you to take it.”

They both had a good laugh and Marc soon left. Baxter grabbed the TRGM envelope stuffed the completed tests in and after applying the proper postage dropped it in the mailbox.

Now, 6 months later, the time of truth had arrived. Baxter showed up at the TRGM Shrink’s door at the appointed hour. He was tempted to stretch out on the couch but he figured the Shrink had probably had that gag pulled on him a thousand times.

Dr. Darryl Meanswell opened their time together with a word of prayer. Upon saying ‘Amen’ he opened up their conversation with small talk asking how Baxter was doing at orientation. Baxter hit all the proper reply buttons and things were going smoothly.

Dr. Meanswell, said, “Baxter, I wish we had more time to go over these tests more thoroughly but since we are on a schedule I think we need to get down to business.”

Meanswell continued, “There is nothing in your tests that serves as a red flag to us that would prohibit you from serving on the Mission field with TRGM. The tests seem to indicate that you function well.” You seem to have a real affection for people…”

Here Baxter smiled and envisioned all the affection that Marc had for all those revolving women.

“And the tests seems to indicate you have boundless energy…”

Baxter could barely contain himself as he recalled Mr. Upper’s (Marc’s) 24-7 schedule.

Meanswell paused, and asked Baxter, “Does that sound like you Son?”

Baxter barely had enough energy to reply, “Yes sir it does.”

Finally, Dr. Meanswell, pointed out the bar on the test that indicated Baxter’s high intelligence, and said, “Baxter, the Mission field needs smart people. You’ll be a real asset.”

Baxter always knew that Marc didn’t get to be a Pharmaceutical engineer by watching the three stooges, but he also figured his plan to have Marc take the psychological tests was its own unique stroke of genius.

“These tests never miss,” replied Dr. Meanswell. “I don’t know how the church operated without them all these years.”

“Hard to believe, isn’t it Doc,” said Baxter.

Meanswell spent the rest of the time talking about some predilections that tests had pointed out that Baxter should beware of about himself. Baxter, compliantly agreed with each one.

Soon the shrink time was over and Dr. Meanswell dismissed Baxter.

Baxter, left, looking forward to telling his non-Christian friend Marc how ready for the Mission field he was.

Linguistic Playtime

“When I use a word,” Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone, “it means just what I choose it to mean . . neither more nor less.”

Today the news reported that California has actually begun to dispense ‘marriage’ licenses for homosexuals. In the news report it was noted that State officials, being the clever bunch that they are, had changed the licenses which previously had spaces for the names of the ‘bride’ and ‘groom’ to provide spaces for the names of ‘partner A’ and ‘partner B.’

I thought that odd.

I means, hells bells, if your going to go ahead and redefine the meaning of the word ‘marriage’ so that it no longer means the joining of a man and woman in a covenantal bond why not go ahead and change the meaning of the words ‘bride’ and ‘groom.’ If the word ‘marriage’ can now mean the ‘uniting’ (even that word needs to be redefined) of two people of the same sex (and what does the word ’sex’ mean anyway?), why does the word ‘bride’ have to carry the connotation of a female party? And why does the word ‘groom’ have to carry the connotation of a male party? And for that matter what do ‘male’ and ‘female’ really mean?

And why stop there? If we are about redefining words to fit our pleasures then why should we constrain and limit the word ‘marriage’ to two parties? If we are about redefining words to fit our pleasures then why should we constrain and limit the word ‘bride’ and ‘groom’ to refer to human species? Is it only social convention that prevents us from defining marriage as a joining of three or more species?

There was a time when the Lewis Carroll quote we started with was clearly understood as satire.