Friday, September 07, 2007
Nederhood's Banner Article
Most of you have probably read Dr. Joel Nederhood's article "Our Dangerous Journey" in the September issue of The Banner (If not, click here for a link). What are your thoughts? If you have been part of this Returning Church discussion you're probably sensing some level of danger for the current journey of the CRC. Is it possible for the CRC to "move beyond" the women-in-office issue as we stand today? Or has it unfortunately come to define who we are as a church - pro or con?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
4 comments:
We should be much more alarmed and concerned about the proposed replacement of the form of subscription, recently emailed from the CRCNA BOT to all the churches. Start writing overtures to classis and synod to defeat this anti-confessional "covenant of ordination" document. If adopted by Synod (I pray it has no chance in hades), it would mean the end of the CRC as a confessionally Reformed Church.
Raymond, I whole-heartedly agree. I've already mentioned that very issue to a number of my colleagues, so I am thankful that you have also taken note of it. I do not believe you are understating the issue when you say that, if this "covenant of ordination" is adopted, then it would mean the end of the CRC as a confessionally Reformed Church. Sadly, you are right on the mark.
Taken another way, this could be just the event that we need to once again seriously engage our denomination about what it means to be a Confessional Church. How many office-bearers sign the Form of Subscription without really understanding what it means, or even more serious, without really intending to carry through on their promise. My guess is that those who have signed up, but did not fully intend to carry through on the promise, are many who would like to see this Covenant of Ordination go through. If this goes through, we might as well forget about being able to argue with authority from the Confessions anymore. They will easily be laid aside as being fit for "that time and place" in which they were written, but no longer speaking to our present situation in any given topic or disagreement.
I will look forward to the overture that will be coming from your Classis, Raymond.
- Rev. Tyler Wagenmaker
Beaverdam CRC
Hudsonville, Michigan
Raymond & Tyler, you both bring up important points. Maybe we need to set up a separate post on this topic. Unfortunately, the "Covenant of Ordination" level of commitment to the confessions (or lack thereof) probably reflects the current level of commitment for many CRC office-bearers. Why is it so easy to sign your name to something that you have no intention of fulfilling? Maybe the "Form of Subscription" has regretably gone the way of marriage licenses, loan documents and the like.
P.S. If anyone is working on an overture, stay in communication. It would be good to have some collaboration and run it through multiple classes.
Rev. Chad Steenwyk
Central Ave CRC
Holland, MI
I've been wondering, if I refuse to sign it (which, in its current state, I certainly would refuse to do), could anyone do anything about it? Could I deposod from the ministry for refusing to sing a watered-down FOS, while bing fully willing to sign the traditional FOS?
As for my classis, I have no confidence that the liberal tending, spineless Classis Alberta North, which rejected with prejudice our consistory's overture regarding infant baptism vs. infant dedication, will support such an overture, but this time we will be prepared for classical waffling and we will send our (surely to be rejected) overture directy to Synod 2008. I have no desire for this kind of controversy, because, in addition to draining my already overtaxed resources, it's also discouraging when your fellow officebearers seem to have no interest in maintaining our doctrinal and confessional integrity.
Post a Comment