History has proven the course defended in this article is detrimental to the church in the long run, and scholarship has demonstrated that it is contrary to the principles of Dutch Reformed polity. This matter was hotly debated in 1926 in the Netherlands (the Geelkerken case) and and again in the 1940's and beyond (the mass depositions of consistories, ministers, and professors resulting in the "liberated" churches). The terrible risk of this route is that it ends the ability of the local consistory to guard over the flock under its care when the majority of the denoimination goes the wrong way and leads to the unreformed practice of treating the local church but a "chapter" in an organization rather than a church of Jesus Christ in its own right. In other words if you are biblical church and the denomination goes liberal, the denomination can swoop in and depose your office bearers for not complying. (In the 1990's the question arose over what to do about churches leaving over women in office: there were voices to depose consistories leading their church out). That route destroys the genius of Dutch Reformed polity. Dutch reformed polity is not to swoop in and depose office bearers but to disclpline the congregation itself, letting them know that failure to live in the commonly agreed covenant means being disfellowshipped. That is the route if you wish to follow the principles underlying the order of Dordt. ( If I locate the author of this article's email address, I will forward a detailed history of the debate on this matter.)
Thanks Don. Personally I do prefer the second option of disfellowshiping a congregation. Stay tuned to part 2. I don't think removing officebearers is against polity though. It certainly isn't against precedent in the CRC. I agree that it causes great heartache. I have friends who are Protestant Reformed and they would tell that side of the story. I don't think classis and synod are normally going to be going around deposing officebearers willy nilly. This is a very rare circumstance but sometimes action has to happen when churches don't comply. I would argue that our confessional positions on SSM have a much greater foundational body of evidence for taking this kind of action than the common grace position did.
I don't have your email address, I forwarded a paper I wrote on the subject (particularly the debate in the Netherlands) in 1992 to the general email address of your church asking that who ever monitors that email forward it to you.
The Belgic Confession in Article 29 states "The marks, by which the true Church is known, are these: if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin: " It seems to me that the CRC as well as many other denominations have, for the most part, abandoned one of these three marks of the true church; that being discipline. How can we call or think of ourselves as the true church when discipline is absent regarding Neland and Grand Rapids East?
It has not been entirely absent, and we will have to se what Classis Grand Rapids East response is now that it, and all Classes, have been instructed to bring their churches and officebearers back into covenant.
69% of Synod 2022 members voted to affirm that homosexual sex was a form of unchastity and that that understanding had confessional status. Synod 2023 upheld that determination. In what way is the Abide Project deficient but that super majority of the CRC is not deficient? Because it seems like the Abide Project's understanding of this issue is closely aligned with the understanding of the CRC as a whole.
Could you also explain what you mean when you say people are not to judge? You've called people Neanderthals and troglodytes and have implied that I am going to hell. That comes across as judgmental. What is the scriptural foundation that is allowing you to pass judgement on others but does not allow those people to point out that some actions are not consistent with traditional Christian teachings on sexual ethics?
I disagree with the idea that a small group pushed a draconian view on the rest of the denomination. The Human Sexuality Report was approved in 2022 by a supermajority 74% vote, and the decision that homosexual sex is a type of unchastity and that that interpretation holds confessional status was passed by a supermajority of 69%.
The concepts laid out in that report are not new and are well in line with previous decisions within the CRCNA, particularly the position on homosexuality established by Synod 1973. They are also aligned with a traditional sexual ethic promoted by the Christian church in general prior to the creation of the CRCNA and laid out in various scriptures that describe marriage as between a man and a woman and that urge believers to conduct themselves in a chaste manner.
And even if the people you describe as "Neanderthals" really were a small group of people, that would not hold any significance per se from a spiritual standpoint. Truth is truth whether or not it is believed by many people or by few people. In fact, the entire Old Testament prophetic tradition basically consists of lone men standing up and speaking God's word to hostile cultures populated by people that did not agree with them and often ended up killing them. Jesus Christ himself said in the sermon on the mount, "[T]he gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it."
In terms of how one ought to love others, I would look to Jesus. Yes, He treated people with kindness, but He did not leave them in their sins. He offered people forgiveness and then told them "Go and sin no more." Part of being loving is showing people the right path and guiding them toward truth.
To the point of the article above, if a denomination has office bearers and people who hold authority in the denomination who not only are not willing to point others to the right path but are actively misleading them and pointing them in a false direction, it would seem that discipline of some sort would be in order.
If you don't believe in the concept of sin and don't accept the idea that some actions can be in line with the way God ordered the world and some action can be out of line with that then I don't know why you would even consider yourself a Christian. I will also point out that I made no comment as to the state of your soul or where you may end up upon your death. Whatever judgement you feel is not coming from me. It is basic Christianity 101 that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. But, back to the topic at hand...
Are you really just going to discount 2,000 years worth of Christian teachings about sexual ethics because they were established prior to 1973?
What do you view as a healthy sexual ethic given that the one presented in the Bible and taught for 2,000 years by numerous Christian denominations beyond the CRC is apparently so deficient?
A general uniformity of belief and vision is necessary for any denomination to be an actual denomination. If various churches within a group hold wildly different and incompatible beliefs then it's hard to see how that group could actually be a cohesive or functional organization. I don't see anything wrong with expecting that members of a denomination all hold to certain set principles.
History has proven the course defended in this article is detrimental to the church in the long run, and scholarship has demonstrated that it is contrary to the principles of Dutch Reformed polity. This matter was hotly debated in 1926 in the Netherlands (the Geelkerken case) and and again in the 1940's and beyond (the mass depositions of consistories, ministers, and professors resulting in the "liberated" churches). The terrible risk of this route is that it ends the ability of the local consistory to guard over the flock under its care when the majority of the denoimination goes the wrong way and leads to the unreformed practice of treating the local church but a "chapter" in an organization rather than a church of Jesus Christ in its own right. In other words if you are biblical church and the denomination goes liberal, the denomination can swoop in and depose your office bearers for not complying. (In the 1990's the question arose over what to do about churches leaving over women in office: there were voices to depose consistories leading their church out). That route destroys the genius of Dutch Reformed polity. Dutch reformed polity is not to swoop in and depose office bearers but to disclpline the congregation itself, letting them know that failure to live in the commonly agreed covenant means being disfellowshipped. That is the route if you wish to follow the principles underlying the order of Dordt. ( If I locate the author of this article's email address, I will forward a detailed history of the debate on this matter.)
Thanks Don. Personally I do prefer the second option of disfellowshiping a congregation. Stay tuned to part 2. I don't think removing officebearers is against polity though. It certainly isn't against precedent in the CRC. I agree that it causes great heartache. I have friends who are Protestant Reformed and they would tell that side of the story. I don't think classis and synod are normally going to be going around deposing officebearers willy nilly. This is a very rare circumstance but sometimes action has to happen when churches don't comply. I would argue that our confessional positions on SSM have a much greater foundational body of evidence for taking this kind of action than the common grace position did.
I don't have your email address, I forwarded a paper I wrote on the subject (particularly the debate in the Netherlands) in 1992 to the general email address of your church asking that who ever monitors that email forward it to you.
Thanks Don, I will respond to your email.
Sounds like you are looking forward to part 2 Don!
The Belgic Confession in Article 29 states "The marks, by which the true Church is known, are these: if the pure doctrine of the gospel is preached therein; if she maintains the pure administration of the sacraments as instituted by Christ; if church discipline is exercised in punishing of sin: " It seems to me that the CRC as well as many other denominations have, for the most part, abandoned one of these three marks of the true church; that being discipline. How can we call or think of ourselves as the true church when discipline is absent regarding Neland and Grand Rapids East?
It has not been entirely absent, and we will have to se what Classis Grand Rapids East response is now that it, and all Classes, have been instructed to bring their churches and officebearers back into covenant.
69% of Synod 2022 members voted to affirm that homosexual sex was a form of unchastity and that that understanding had confessional status. Synod 2023 upheld that determination. In what way is the Abide Project deficient but that super majority of the CRC is not deficient? Because it seems like the Abide Project's understanding of this issue is closely aligned with the understanding of the CRC as a whole.
Could you also explain what you mean when you say people are not to judge? You've called people Neanderthals and troglodytes and have implied that I am going to hell. That comes across as judgmental. What is the scriptural foundation that is allowing you to pass judgement on others but does not allow those people to point out that some actions are not consistent with traditional Christian teachings on sexual ethics?
I disagree with the idea that a small group pushed a draconian view on the rest of the denomination. The Human Sexuality Report was approved in 2022 by a supermajority 74% vote, and the decision that homosexual sex is a type of unchastity and that that interpretation holds confessional status was passed by a supermajority of 69%.
The concepts laid out in that report are not new and are well in line with previous decisions within the CRCNA, particularly the position on homosexuality established by Synod 1973. They are also aligned with a traditional sexual ethic promoted by the Christian church in general prior to the creation of the CRCNA and laid out in various scriptures that describe marriage as between a man and a woman and that urge believers to conduct themselves in a chaste manner.
And even if the people you describe as "Neanderthals" really were a small group of people, that would not hold any significance per se from a spiritual standpoint. Truth is truth whether or not it is believed by many people or by few people. In fact, the entire Old Testament prophetic tradition basically consists of lone men standing up and speaking God's word to hostile cultures populated by people that did not agree with them and often ended up killing them. Jesus Christ himself said in the sermon on the mount, "[T]he gate is wide and the way is broad that leads to destruction, and there are many who enter through it. For the gate is narrow and the way is constricted that leads to life, and there are few who find it."
In terms of how one ought to love others, I would look to Jesus. Yes, He treated people with kindness, but He did not leave them in their sins. He offered people forgiveness and then told them "Go and sin no more." Part of being loving is showing people the right path and guiding them toward truth.
To the point of the article above, if a denomination has office bearers and people who hold authority in the denomination who not only are not willing to point others to the right path but are actively misleading them and pointing them in a false direction, it would seem that discipline of some sort would be in order.
If you don't believe in the concept of sin and don't accept the idea that some actions can be in line with the way God ordered the world and some action can be out of line with that then I don't know why you would even consider yourself a Christian. I will also point out that I made no comment as to the state of your soul or where you may end up upon your death. Whatever judgement you feel is not coming from me. It is basic Christianity 101 that all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God. But, back to the topic at hand...
Are you really just going to discount 2,000 years worth of Christian teachings about sexual ethics because they were established prior to 1973?
What do you view as a healthy sexual ethic given that the one presented in the Bible and taught for 2,000 years by numerous Christian denominations beyond the CRC is apparently so deficient?
A general uniformity of belief and vision is necessary for any denomination to be an actual denomination. If various churches within a group hold wildly different and incompatible beliefs then it's hard to see how that group could actually be a cohesive or functional organization. I don't see anything wrong with expecting that members of a denomination all hold to certain set principles.