Monday, August 20, 2007
PK's Reflections on the CRC and "Righting the Ship"
George Pierson is Associate Professor of Philosophy at Trinity Christian College in Palos Heights, Illinois and an elder in the Palos Heights CRC. As a PK (preacher's kid), he offers some interesting and provocative reflections on church life and what it takes to "right the ship." Click here to read his thoughts and please leave your comments by clicking below.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
7 comments:
Brother and Prof. Pierson,
Reading your reflections reminded me of similar conversations we had during my time as a philosophy major at Trinity. So I know these are issues that have concerned you for many years now.
Your essay indicates that you are keenly aware of CRC history, as well as that of American Presbyterianism, as it relates to the issue of biblical and confessional integrity. As you note, history does not offer much in the way of hope for church federations that play fast and loose with God’s Word.
While I certainly respect the efforts and intentions of associations like The Returning Church and RCA Integrity, I think you are right to question whether the limited energies of those involved would not be better spent building faithful Christian community in another denomination, one that is not actively placing stumbling blocks in front of them.
The sense I get from following recent events in the CRC and at this blog is that those involved in this renewal effort are of necessity moving toward a kind of congregational independentism and away from identification with the CRC bureaucracy (cf. Sam Hamstra, “A Modest Proposal”, The Banner, March 2007). This may be an outwardly workable relationship for now, but I think it only covers the deep, unhealed divisions with the thin veneer of “unity”.
The issue of unity is one that should be examined more closely. What is unity in the Church and how should it be fostered and maintained? For all the concerned build-up on this site to the most recent Synod and its historical decisions regarding the divisive issue of scriptural faithfulness (commonly known as "women-in-office"), the response has been an underwhelming and seemingly naïve appeal to unity. Grateful words were offered to Synod for its respect of the dissenters and the room created for them in its decisions. What room exactly? Safely and harmlessly tucked away in the margins. Nevertheless, unity has been held up by some as the “one issue” that defines those in this conversation. But after all that has occurred in the CRC, it must be asked, unity at what cost?
May the Lord guide and instruct you as you contemplate what the future may hold for you, your family and your church.
George, thank you for sharing your article, and your heart. I understand what you are saying, and I've had many of the same thoughts and feelings. Yet, two verses came to mind after reading your letter.
The first is the concept of remaining in the calling where in we are called from 1 Corinthians 7:17-24. We having been placed here, by the sovereign will and determination of God, have to consider that we are here on purpose, and not by chance. Who can tell what God's reasons for this may be? Yes, fighting the fight can be draining, but it is God who gives us the strength to accomplish all that He has called us to. And what's the good of staying? More than likely, we won't ever right our denomination. But if God uses our staying and speaking for the truth to call back one classis, or one church, or one family, or even one other member, was that not worth the battle? And more than that, to battle, and to stand against the tide, even if we never have one person join us, we can complete our most important mission of Honoring and Glorifying God and His Holy Word.
Does that mean we never leave, no. When the denomination makes rules that we can't in good conscience allow in our church (like affirmative action for woman), we will have to leave, or we will force them to throw us out. But, until then, I feel that I am personally called to this battle.
The second passage that came to mind was Judges 3:1-2, where it talks about nations remaining in the Holy land, that God might use them to teach the next generation how to war. I agree, we can get so caught up in our battles, that we could be in danger of losing blessing the Lord would teach us. At the same time, God has things that He can teach us in battle, that we won't learn in peace and quiet of our studies. Look at church history again? When has the church grown most, in conflict and persecution, or in peace and ease?
I hold nothing against those who are led to leave this fight, and I doubt everyone is called to stay. I feel that I am. I don't place that as the bar then of what every conservative in the CRC should do, instead I am to focus on my calling, and run the race that I've been placed in with all of my might, unto the honor of my Lord and Savior Jesus Christ.
Professor George Pierson's article is very enlightening, and I am thankful for his words. He does ask in his article, however, whether it is time to cease the struggle and expend the energy elsewhere. I believe that is an excellent question, and one I heard over a decade ago when the United Reformed Churches were beginning to take shape, as churches left the CRC. The case was being made then, too, to expend our energies not on a struggle within the CRC, but to expend them on more worthier kingdom causes like missions, for instance.
I would challenge Prof. Pierson and others Christians like him to see the advantages of engaging in that struggle, and continuing to. I have witnessed in different congregations, for instance, that it is only in the midst of this struggle that our Elders and Deacons begin to take note and read about what is happening. Begin to attend conferences on Reformed theology. Begin to perk up more during sermons and Bible studies. As one who was engaged in physical warfare over in Iraq, I can tell you that a struggle and a worthy fight is what keeps the senses sharp. It commits people to studying and learning in ways they wouldn't before.
One of the biggest dangers sometimes is that of peace. So easily complacency sets in, and Elders and Deacons and yes, ministers too, leave decisions up to others. A good noble fight and struggle, when done in love, is often the best thing for us. We are the church militant, not yet the church triumphant.
George, I would encourage you to continue the good fight. I believe the CRC is worth the struggle and the fight, for God's Word and its authority is worth the struggle and the fight. These are important issues that Christians need to content for. I have found the struggle over the years to actually have made me BETTER equipped to deal with the world, not less equipped.
Keep up the struggle, brother. It is a worthy fight. We need you.
Rev.Tyler Wagenmaker
Beaverdam CRC
Hudsonville, Michigan
Brothers,
I live in Southeastern Michigan (Carleton to be specific) which is, in terms of the historic Reformed faith, a virtual wasteland. The closest solid churches to me are across town in the metropolitan Detroit area (an OPC) or south into Toledo (a PCA). While acceptable for Sunday mornings it virtually eliminates the possibility of mid-week involvement thereby excluding one from the community life of the church. But 32 miles away (close in comparison to the other options) is Ann Arbor Christian Reformed Church. Bret McAtee, pastor of Charlotte Christian Reformed, is a very close personal friend so I was aware of the current problems within the denomination and more specifically Classis Lake Erie. Nevertheless I was hopeful that within that congregation there might remain some “old timers” that wanted to see the CRC return to what it once was and that perhaps I might add to that voice. We started attending (my wife and I) in late October of last year and were warmly welcomed by a number of the members. I even struck up an amicable relationship with Dr. George Mavrodes, emeritus professor of philosophy and UMICH and we had some lively arguments about covenant theology, George being a Baptist and hungry for someone to ‘argue with’ since most found him a bit intimidating.
At any rate I believe that if one is to be an effective part of a church community one must actually be a member so several weeks ago my wife and I began attending the required membership class. The class is facilitated by Pastor Harvey Stob. He follows an outline leading folks through some of what he called the fundamentals of the faith. One question in his outline was “do people need to be saved? do you need to be saved? from what do you need to be saved?” Well it turns out we need to be saved from anxiety, fear, shame and doubt. Not a single mention of sin or God’s wrath. So I raised my hand and asked if I could ask a question, he gave out a sigh and said yes. I asked him why he thought we needed to be saved from negative emotions? Was it his opinion that we are condemned by feelings of anxiety or shame? No answer, so I went on. It seems to me, I said, that we need to be saved from the wrath of an angry God directed at sinners for their transgression of the law. Sin is, after all, lawlessness. No doubt sinners have any number of negative emotions resulting from sin that we would like to be set free from, but those feelings are symptoms of the sin that actually condemns us. Several people chimed in that they agreed. He gave no answer but continued on.
Three days later I received a phone call from Pastor Stob asking if I would be willing to meet with himself, the other pastor (John Groen) and an elder. So I asked if this was all precipitated by my comments at the Wednesday night membership class. Well we just want to be open and honest was his reply. That is commendable I said but again was this all brought about by my comments at the class. Well we just want to be open and honest he repeated. Yes you said that but what does that mean? Well, said Harvey, I just don’t think you’ll be happy in our church and we want to ask you some questions. Uh huh! So I agreed to meet. I have the questions I was asked scanned into jpeg format which I’d be happy to send to anyone wanting to see them. Just provide your email address.
The meeting went well as far as I was concerned but after the next class I was given a letter and asked not to open it then but to wait until I got home to read it. I have that scanned also and it is available if you want to read it but effectively it was a gag order. They were fearful that I might cause divisions and strife in the church because of my (and I could hardly believe this) because of my “intense interest in certain aspects of Reformed theology”. In other words I was being singled out as dangerous for being Reformed in a Reformed church.
Another couple, our close friends, we so upset by this that he (Bob) asked for a meeting with Pastor Stob. At that meeting he was told that the membership class was used to weed out those that he thought were going to cause problems. In that meeting Harvey told Bob that women in authority was not open to discussion. That the majority of the members at AACRC were theistic evolutionists and that he himself found the writings of those outside of the Reformed tradition more useful and pertinent to the times. Bob was told that while he [Harvey Stob] found the Heidelberg useful the Confession and the Canons were of little value. He went so far as to say that the Canons were cold likening them to a block of dry ice. So cold one is burned by them. At my first meeting Pastor Stob made it clear that he was anxious for the current FOS to be abandoned in favor of something more appropriate. He also suggested that there was nothing wrong with ordaining Baptists as pastors in the CRC.
That is what those of you who are fighting for orthodoxy within the CRC are up against.
I have a letter written and addressed to the Pastors and Elders of AACRC that I will be sending when Harvey Sob returns from vacation. I’ll post it here when I do.
For what it’s worth,
Mark Chambers
Mark - It would be great to see the questions you had for the new members class. If you're willing, please send them to returningchurch@yahoo.com. This doesn't go out to all those on the mailing list.
Frustrating is probably not the right word for where you are with all this, but it's got to be part of it. You're going to find a growing diversity in the CRC - theologically - and in willingness (and eagerness) to stand on the truth of Scripture - or even acknowledging that there is such as thing as "truth of Scripture." Lamentable at best and unfortunately, I don't know how much diversity exists in SE Michigan in the CRC.
I do have to say, anyone who likens the Canons of Dort to a block of dry ice has never attempted to even read them... an ignorant response. We are doing a Wednesday night study through them and I have been blow away by the beauty of God's grace seen there. I guess if you're indifferent about God's grace...
Chad Steenwyk
Central Ave CRC
Holland, MI
Hello Chad,
It is not the questions from the class itself that I have, but rather the questions asked me when I appeared before the pastors, and I'll send them along. If I still have the papers from the first membership class I'll scan them in and send them as well.
I am not sure what I'm going to do. A number of folks have asked that we not leave but that is based on casual conversations and my input in various SS classes. No controversial issues have been broached to date and certainly it is only a matter of time before that happened. I don't know where these folks would come down on those issues. I do know that the battle over women was fought a number of years ago and most of the resistance left when the battle was lost.
Harvey Stob is the consumate liberal. Indeed he is Henry's nephew and having read the article by Swierenga, referenced somewhere on this site (I think it was here) one notices the name of Stob at every point where the liberal agenda has been introduced into the denomination. And that article doesn't inspire confidence. The CRC is on a path identical to that of the PCUSA and I'm not sure that my involvement at AACRC would be anything but futile.
I've studied Reformed Theology for 30 years and these things make me crazy.
Mark,
I think it would be helpful for others of us to see those questions that you were given, as well as the letter. I am disturbed by what you encountered at Ann Arbor CRC, although it sounds as if they might as well remove the word "Reformed" from their name. Perhaps just Ann Arbor Church would do.
If you are willing, and Chad Steenwyk is, perhaps we could post those questions and the letter on this blog site, as well as on the Facebook site. It could cause some lively discussion, and could be useful in helping to illustrate what we will be attempting to talk about during the April 17 Returning Church meeting at 1st CRC in Byron Center.
I wish I could say that your report is a surprise. Sadly, I cannot. Too many have strayed too far that such a conversation with a CRC is not an unthinkable occurance.
In His Service,
Rev. Tyler Wagenmaker
Beaverdam CRC
Post a Comment