There have been several overtures and communications working through church councils and classes in the past several months. Here are a few of them. If you know of others, please comment and we'll post them here.
Classis Alberta North - overture requesting Synod to reject the proposed Covenant of Ordination (Scroll down through classis agenda)
NEW: Classis Columbia - overture rejecting the proposed Covenant of Ordination.
Classis Holland - overture re-emphasizing confessional unity in the denomination
Classis Minnkota - overture requesting Synod to reject the proposed Covenant of Ordination
Classis Zeeland - overture re-emphasizing the Form of Subscription (see Agenda below)
NEW: Also, there are also overtures and communications listed in the 2008 Agenda for Synod from Classes Northcentral Iowa, Iakota and Lake Superior and Erie. Click here for a PDF version of the agenda.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
16 comments:
When I alerted some folk to these overtures, I was reminded that there was an opportunity to submit responses to the committee's work before the new year, and that the committee has altered its report accordingly. The final committee report should be available very soon. As I understand, it should be more acceptable, but we shall see
Dave Watson, Kent, WA
Dave,
We figured the revision committee would do some changing - it remains to be seen what will be changed. That's what makes this difficult, the timing doesn't allow anyone (churches/classes) to respond to the final draft... a bit of poor planning if you ask me. I'm glad to see there are many in the church who are concerned about the confessional (and therefore Biblical) foundations of the CRC.
Chad Steenwyk, Holland, MI
I have a feeling that some of the overtures that address the Covenant of Ordination directly will be dismissed if the revision committee comes with a different form... a rightfully so. However, the overtures from Classes Holland and Zeeland approach it indirectly, so they should be dealt with, in theory, regardless of what the new Covenant looks like.
Chad Steenwyk, Holland, MI
MEMORANDUM
OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR
To: Pastors, Clerks of Council, and Church Leaders
Date: March 6, 2008
Subject: Form of Subscription Revision Task Force Report and the Contemporary Testimony Revision Committee Report
After years of careful work and significant input from CRC members, churches, and institutions, the committee appointed to revise the Contemporary Testimony and the task force appointed to review the Form of Subscription have completed their work.
Both reports will be included in the printed Agenda for Synod 2008. While the Agenda will not be available for another month or more, both of these reports and the recommendations that accompany them are now available on the synod page of the CRCNA web site:http://www.crcna.org/pages/synodical.cfm
Both committees solicited and received considerable input from the denomination as they prepared and edited their reports. Churches that wish to respond to the committee reports still have the option of doing so by way of a communication or an overture to synod. When possible such overtures should be processed through the local classis. In the case of classes that no longer meet in the spring making such processing impossible, communications and overtures should be submitted to synod through the office of the executive director. However, in the end, synod itself determines what matters are legally before it for action or for information.
If there is more that either I or the synodical services office can do to assist you, please do not hesitate to contact us.
Blessings,
Jerry Dykstra
Rev. Gerard L. Dykstra
Executive Director
616-224-0832
dykstraj@...
According to Rev. Dykstra, overtures drafted in response to the initial report will not be accepted by Synod. And I agree Chad, poor planning. Our church, Sunnyslope CRC (Salem, OR) drafted an overture opposing these changes. When we found this out, we opted to convene a Classis contracta at which we will draft an overture responding to the final committee report (if necessary). It will still need to be addressed at Synod.
-- Rob Toornstra, Salem, OR
On Honesty in Subscription to Creeds
Suggested Replacement For FOS
Form Of Subscription Debate (Part III)
Form Of Subscription Debate (Part II)
Form Of Subscription Debate
Back To The Form Of Subscription
All to be found at www.ironink.org
Bret
The Committee's report is downloadable here. (Dave Watson)
http://www.crcna.org/site_uploads/uploads/resources/FormofSubscriptionReport08.pdf
Apparently the committee that did the first work on reasoning for the wholesale change to the Christian Reformed Church's 'Form of Subscription' went back to the drawing board after some input and modified some of their work. I won't spend a lot of time with this because the modifications are not that substantial and I've already dealt with the work prior to this slight modification.
From the new and improved committee work we read,
"The variety of issues with signing the Form of Subscription that have come up, as well as ongoing attempts to change it, indicate that officebearers today seek to be guided by—not silenced by—the FOS in their understanding of the confessions."
OK... here is really where the issue becomes fuzzy. How could any officebearer claim to be being guided by the FOS if they were advocating something that heretofore would found the FOS to have been silencing them? This whole 'guided by - not silenced by' language is just cutesy for, 'What it says has made me to think but I disagree with it.' Second, how can an officebearer claim to be guided by the Form of Subscription while at the same time rising up to speak against their guide? Why else would being 'silenced by the FOS' be threatening unless some officebearer determined that the guide was wrong? And if officebearers determine that the guide is wrong are they really be guided by the FOS? In this context, what does 'guided by' mean? (Everybody knows that 'not silenced by' means that it will be ok to rise up to speak against the confessions.)
"Therefore, any regulatory instrument that is adopted by the church ought to be regarded as an invitation to the officebearers of the church to participate in this ongoing reflection rather than as a
document that precludes or hinders such reflection. To this end, we recommend, first, that the title of this document be A Doctrinal Covenant for Officebearers rather than Form of Subscription because it outlines the communal nature of the responsibilities and blessings of ordination and encourages participation as well as regulation."
First note that it is admitted that the FOS or Covenant of Ordination (COO) is intended to be a regulatory document. If something is regulatory it means that it is regulating (monitoring) behavior to insure conformity. And yet, this regulatory, 'not silencing'instrument, is an invitation to ongoing reflection that presumptively can lead to change in the Confessions. So what does the regulatory instrument regulate since it no longer seems to be regulating adherence? Does it regulate the rate of change? Does it regulate the amount of loquaciousness of those who desire change? Does it regulate the communal nature of change? Does it regulate the rate of participation? What does this new document regulate?
Second, given this is a covenant of ordination and given that all covenants have sanctions for violations one wonders what will be considered a violation of this regulatory covenant and what will be the sanctions of the yet unknown violations?
"To remain a truly confessional church, the confessions need to function significantly in our various callings, helping us to deepen our understanding of Scripture in our Reformed tradition."
The Confessions, 'Functioning significantly' is a great deal different then the Confessions 'being adhered to.' 'Function significantly' is also pretty subjective. Who gets to define if the Confessions are functioning significantly in Homer's life but not Horatio's and by what standard?
I still strenuously disagree with making the Contemporary Testimony a virtual Fourth form of unity and I likewise disagree with the slippery Covenant of ordination language.
Submitted by Dave Watson, Kent, WA
http://www.crcna.org/news.cfm?newsid=486
Proposed New Form of Subscription Now Online
March 12, 2008 -- The Christian Reformed Church in North America has posted on its web site a proposed new version of its Form of Subscription, the document that preachers, professors, evangelists, elders and deacons are asked to sign before beginning their work for the church.
Synod 2008 will be asked to review and adopt the revised form and then make it available for new church officers to sign. The form being recommended by the study committee is called “A Doctrinal Covenant for Officebearers in the CRCNA.”
This new document tries to steer away from punitive language, although it still requires officebearers to follow church teachings.
“It is very clear in the new form that we are not trying to get away from the truth of the church. We accept the historic confessions,” says Rev. John Van Schepen, chair of the committee that worked on the project.
At the same time, says Van Schepen, the revised version takes into consideration the needs of CRC members in the 21st century. “We have tried to create a document that functions in a meaningful way,” he says.
The current document in its original form was adopted by the Synod of Dort in the 17th Century, translated into English by the Synod of 1912, and slightly modified by the Synod of 1988.
“The 400-year-old FOS has traditionally been viewed as being the hallmark of a confessional church,” says the committee report, adding that “many years of conflicted discussion about the FOS in the CRC reveal the need for a doctrinal covenant more in harmony with current realities.”
The new document does not contain words that some have said threaten to silence and punish officebearers who express difficulty in accepting certain church doctrines.
For instance, the older version says persons who find conflict with church teaching must “submit to the judgment of the consistory, classis, or synod, realizing that the consequence of refusal to do so is suspension from office.”
“The removal of silencing language, which has led so many churches and church members to simply ignore the FOS, creates a positive climate in which today’s leaders can” study, reflect on and promote the teachings of the church, says Van Schepen.
Still, there are consequences for those whose views conflict with church teaching. “We will communicate our view to the church according to the procedures prescribed by the Church Order and its supplements and promise to submit to its judgment,” reads the new doctrinal covenant for officers of the church.
To view the study committee’s report, visit: www.crcna.org/site_uploads/uploads/resources/FormofSubscriptionReport08.pdf
—Chris Meehan, CRC Communications
April Banner on FOS/CoO
http://www.thebanner.org/magazine/article.cfm?article_id=1493
De Moor editorial
Blacketer article
http://www.thebanner.org/magazine/article.cfm?article_id=1495
One wonders why we haven't officially seen the new updated FOS which Rev. DeMoor speaks of and which Synod must now deal with.
If a person were cynical, skeptical, and distrusting they might answer that in just such a manner somebody could more easily get the new FOS passed in a 'flying beneath the radar - Stealth' kind of fashion.
Fortunately, I'm neither cynical, skeptical nor distrusting and I just think that it is an unintended and unfortunate oversight that has this new FOS coming before Synod this year.
Bret - There is a link posted in one of the comments above that should get you to the "revised revision" of the the FOS. It is certainly better than when they started but not quite there. If that link doesn't get you there, poke around www.crcna.org and under "Resources" click on Synod. It is listed under the "Reports" section. To be fair, it was emailed a couple of weeks ago - at least we received it that way. There is an article in the Banner about the fact that the revision on the FOS report and the Contemporary Testimony revisions have come out too late for churches and classes to respond through the normal channels (overture/communications). It sounds like since these are not official Synocial committees (they are Board of Trustee committees) they possibly don't have to follow the protocol of having their reports out to the churches by the previous November... I think that is a whole other issue that deperately needs to be addressed too.
Rev. Chad Steenwyk
Holland, MI
I noticed your website for the Returning Church and I thought you might be interested in an article we republished in the April issue of The Outlook by Dr. Louis Praamsma entitled The Character of the Church's Creeds. With respect to recent discussion of the Form of Subscription in the CRC, the article is very timely, even though it was written more than forty years ago. Here is a link: http://www.reformedfellowship.net/articles/praamsma_creeds_apr08_v57_n04.htm
In Christ,
Henry Gysen
President
Reformed Fellowship, Inc.
Seven Classical Overtures concerning Subscription made it into the 2008 Agenda - pp.297-312. You can download the Agenda at
http://www.crcna.org/site_uploads/uploads/resources/2008_agenda.pdf
Dave Watson, Kent, WA
Classis Columbia has just adopted an overture opposing this Covenant of Ordination; If someone lets me know how I can post this, I would be happy to do so.
-- Rev. Rob Toornstra, Sunnyslope CRC, Salem, OR
Rob - just email the overture to returningchurch@yahoo.com and we'll get it posted. Thanks.
Post a Comment