On November 9, the six pastors who helped organize the Dr. Nederhood meeting this past September met together with a representation of their respective elder bodies. The purpose of the meeting was to discuss some of the thoughts coming out of the September meeting and seek direction for the future.
Many ideas were discussed, including curriculum, theological classes, ways to work together and be "salt" in the CRC, connecting with biblical, Reformed resources outside our circles and communicating throughout the CRC. Through all of this discussion, it became clear that there needed to some identification of who we are and what is trying to be accomplished.
It was decided that this identification process needed to happen first. Trinity CRC in Sparta had been working on a position paper, which it has since adopted. They will probably be asking other churches for input and offer it as a template for adoption by other councils. It possibly will be made available for broader review and consideration as well. When a meeting occurs to discuss this we will communicate further.
Several CRC pastors from around the country are going to the Bethlehem Pastors’ Conference in Minneapolis this coming February. Hopefully we will be able to have some face-to-face discussions then. Also, there has been some talk of a conference or meeting prior to or following the Philadelphia Conference on Reformed Theology to be held in Grand Rapids, MI, on April 20-22, 2007 (the PCRT is also held in Sacramento; Jackson, MS, and Philadelphia on other dates).
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
9 comments:
I greet this movement with a combination of interest and apprehension.
When will we find out what the Returning Church stands for? If it stands for a return to confessional Reformed orthodoxy, and discovering new ways to invigorate our confessional tradition and to get our people excited about their Reformed heritage, then I'm very interested. I have been seeking to do just that in my own pastoral call, teaching the confessions and emphasizing our Reformed doctrinal distintives (and not just some left-wing Kuyperian social gospel masquerading as the Reformed faith).
But if it's only about opposition to women's ordination, count me out. And I you would be wise to avoid the term "conservative churches," since Reformed orthodoxy is not the same as "conservative." American Fundamentalist churches, whose influence is regrettably strong in our churches, are also conservative, but are by no means Reformed. So, are you conservative, fundamentalist, or confessional? I hope it's the latter. And I hope you leave some room for some diversity in views among your supporters.
Dr. Randy Blacketer
Neerlandia CRC
Neerlandia, Alberta
For your links section, note that CRConnect, which had been hijacked and pirated, is now a blogspot page with the address: crconnect.blogspot.com
Randy Blacketer
I think Dr. Blacketer asks a worthwhile question. Will "Returning Church" be conservative, fundamentalist or confessional?
I certainly can't speak for everyone else, but I would hope that our vision is to "discover new ways to invigorate our confessional tradition" as Dr. Blacketer says. I would also hope that our commitment to Scripture and our confessional heritage will shape the way we discuss issues. I hope our discussions will be based on a close,contextual, and confessional reading of Scripture and not in the way I've heard discussions debated at classis and Synod in recent years - discussions that lean heavily on emotional appeal, pragmatic consideration, and cultural argument, but lacking Scriptural content.
So I, too, would hope that this isn't only about opposition to women in office. However, it seems likely that women-in-office will be a significant item on our agenda, given the fact that it is on our denomination's agenda.
One reason I think this issue needs to be on our agenda: I believe that the "women in office issue" is symptomatic of our denomination's drift from her Scriptural and confessional heritage; symptomatic of our accommodation to the "spirit of the age".
I share the conviction of those who formed the "Council on Biblical Manhood & Womanhood". In the "Danvers Statment" of 1987 they gave their rationale for making a big deal about the rise of "evangelical feminisim" in the church. I'll quote several points they made:
"We have been moved in our purpose by the following contemporary developments which we observe with deep concern: 1) The widespread uncertainty and confusion in our culture regarding the complementary differences between masculinity and femininity;. . . . 7) the emergence of roles for men and women in church leadership that do not conform to biblical teaching but backfire in the crippling of bilically faithful witness; 8) the increasing prevalance of hermeneutical oddities devised to reinterpret apparently plain meanings of biblical texts; 9) the consequent threat to biblical authority as the clarity of Scripture is jeopardized and the accessibility of its meaning to ordinary people is withdrawn into the restricted realm of technical ingenuity; 10) and behind all this the apparent accommodation of some to the spirit of the age at the expense of winsome, radical biblical authenticity which in the power of the Holy Spirit may reform rather than reflect our ailing culture." (Danvers Statement, Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, 1987). You can access this statement, along with other resources, at www.cbmw.org.
I hope this furthers a conversation initiated by Dr. Blacketer's question.
Richard Zekveld,
Pastor, Transcona CRC, Winnipeg
Dr. Blacketer's comments and questions are not unusual ones, I believe. I would try to reply to them in this way:
1. I don't believe the Returning Church movement has really referred to itself as "conservative," as I didn't find that in anything put out by the movement. So I'm not quite sure, Dr. Blacketer, where that is coming from...perhaps that could be pointed out.
2. We are a confessing movement, desiring to get back to the authority and clarity of Scripture's teachings as summarized for us in our Creeds and Confessions. That documents like the Heidelberg Catechism and Belgic Confession be not unused documents in Christian Reformed churches, but taught and referenced and used often in sermons and our educational material.
3. With the issue of women in office, from our discussions, we would not say that we are all about this issue, not in the least. There is a broader issue at stake that we would like to address in the CRC, of which the issue of women serving in ecclesiastical offices is but a symptom. The sickness is the issue of the final authority of Scripture, and how we would say that many in our denomination are being influenced more by culture than by the clear and historical teachings of Scripture.
4. One evidence to all of this that I would point to would be some of the comments I heard on the floor of Synod 2006 (I served as a delegate). Too often I heard something along the lines of "we need to follow the leading of the Spirit," which is all good and well, but that was used as a justification to move almost ANYWHERE. The Holy Spirit will not lead anywhere that is contrary to Scripture. But instead we've made the Spirit subjective, based on where we "feel" He is leading or could lead, rather than doing the hard work of searching and referencing the Bible and actually listening to His actual words.
- Rev. Tyler Wagenmaker
Beaverdam CRC (Hudsonville, MI)
Dr. Blacketer - I would greatly appreciate hearing how you are teaching the confesssions and emphasizing our Reformed doctrinal distinctives. As you know well, the is plenty of opposition to anything doctrinal in our churches. This is a great place to encourage one another with what the Lord is doing in our local congregations.
Rev. Chad Steenwyk
Central Ave CRC
Holland, MI
In the January Banner this quote appeared:
“We’re seeing if this should become something more organized to give conservative churches a place to belong in the CRC,” said [Rev. Chad]Steenwyk.
This is where I got the term "conservative," and if the quote is accurate then this answers Rev. Wagenmaker's comment: "I don't believe the Returning Church movement has really referred to itself as "conservative," as I didn't find that in anything put out by the movement. So I'm not quite sure, Dr. Blacketer, where that is coming from...perhaps that could be pointed out."
If this new movement is, indeed, about a return to a confessional-based revival, so be it and I'm on board.
However, in my reading of the site so far, I must say that it appears that "confessional" is simply used as a label to end all discussion on women in office. But it doesn't work to call an anti-women in office stance "Confessional." Has anyone read the earliest church orders in this regard? You might be surprised. Has anyone read Voetius (architect of the Nadere Reformatsie) and his work that insisted not just that Anna Maria Van Schuurman be allowed into to the Utrecht University (read=SEMINARY), but that she MUST be allowed based on scripture? Sorry boys, but the fact is that anti-women in office was simply not an issue of the confessions; to the contrary, read Heidelberg LD 12. The proscription of women in office was a latter development, and even then not universally applied nor followed. Has anyone researched, or does anyone even care to know what Calvinists in southern France said in this regard? Anyone care to guess what Calvinists in Hungary said and did? Has anyone done their homework before slapping the term "confessional" on issues?
If you really want to be "confessional," I think you ought to start with worship. That was, indeed, a salient feature of the earliest discussions as the Reformed Church was formed. For example, think of the "Praise Team," a select group of painted, lighted, and microphoned "worship leaders" who sing AT the congregation. Reformers had that experience also, it was called a monastic choir. They did away with it all in favor of participation BY ALL with music that was of "weight and majesty" (anyone even more interested in this point, ask me for a copy of my PhD Thesis). "Confessional"? How about a return to a Calvinist understanding of the Lord's supper and not a Zwinglian one. Confessional? How about discussion of how we can return a vibrant use of the Psalms to worship?
If you really want a confessional revival, great. I'm with you. But if this is simply another forum to justify an anti-women in office stance as "confessional," well, that has no academic or historical integrity. And repeating it ad infinitum doesn't make it so, either. "Scripture-soaked" study reveals no linkage, ever, between gender and the gifts of the Spirit.
Let's talk instead about a more confessional worship practice.
Dr. Randall D. Engle
North HIlls CRC
Troy, Michigan
Hi Randy,
I just read your January 31 post today. You asked for interested readers - readers interested in the historical materials you named.
Well, I'm interested. Where can we access these materials?
Incidentally, I share your concerns about the issues you raised - I'll mention particularly the memorialist understanding of the Lord's Supper. In addition, I feel helpless at times as a pastor when I see the way individualism continues to erode our understanding and living out of covenant.
Richard Zekveld.
Post a Comment