Esther at Christmas: In Exile “Here”

by Arie C. Leder

Luther argued that neither belonged to Scripture. Maimonides thought Esther was second in importance only to the Torah; what he thought about James I don’t know. I do know that the more I reflect on Esther the closer I come to Maimonides, no doubt for different reasons, and find greater similarity between Esther and James. Especially at Christmas.

The similarity begins with James’ address. He writes “to the twelve tribes scattered among the nations” (1:1); Esther’s Jews are scattered among the 127 provinces of Xerxes’ empire. Joy and testing are James’ first concern; Esther ends with joy and celebration. Taken together, Esther and James urge God’s people of every age to sing, “O come, O come, Immanuel, and ransom captive Israel, that dwells in lonely exile here.” Especially at Christmas.

Scattered like the exiles

Like Esther’s Jews, Christians live scattered among the nations. There’s nothing wrong with that. In Esther the Jews are not condemned for causing their own exile; there is no desire to return to Jerusalem, not a hint about God’s mighty acts of salvation, not a line about divine instructions and decrees. The Jews, including Mordecai and Esther, are simply there, citizens of Xerxes’ empire. It’s about them and what they do when their existence is threatened.

That is James’ problem, too. No glorying in the cross like Paul, no reveling in God’s mighty acts of rescue or the wonder of his grace. James only pushes his readers to exercise the faith once for all received, to embody the cross, to live out grace. We Christians are simply there, scattered among the nations, in China, Darfur, and Myanmar. James is about us Christians and what we do when we are tested, what our tongues achieve with our speech, how we keep ourselves from being polluted by the world (1:27).

Esther and James are about who we are and what we do, scattered among the nations. Especially at Christmas.

Keeping our identity in exile

In sickness or in health, James writes, remember who you are. Count it joy when something or someone tests your faith (1:2-3), that way you’ll grow up, stop whining, and learn patience (5:10). Want to be happy? Forget about prosperity, sing songs of praise (5:13). Remember what it’s all about: the truth about sin and turning from the way of death (5:19-20). Scattered among the nations, says James, is not bad; its what you let happen to yourselves there if you don’t keep the faith.

Haman, enemy of the Jews, was the way of death Mordecai and Esther turned from. With all the power of the empire Haman sought to rid the earth of the likes of Mordecai and Esther, people who wouldn’t bow to the ways of the world. At the gate and in the harem they used their tongues to steer Xerxes’ ship of state for the salvation of many. Their testing led to joy and celebration (9:22), to the annual memory of rescue from the enemy far from Jerusalem.

In exile “here”

Why do these things happen to the Jews and Christians? Opposition to God’s people in Esther, the early church, under the Inquisition, and in Darfur happens for one reason: we are in exile “here,” scattered among the nations, in this world. The world will not be kind to God’s elect; there you will only have trouble, Jesus said. In Esther Xerxes’ empire was not home for the Jews, but neither was earthly Jerusalem. Not a hint of “next year in Jerusalem!” Only this: remember what can happen to us in the world.

We who find ourselves scattered throughout the 127 provinces of the world, still await our true home. We are waiting for Immanuel. Even as Christ came to dwell among us after the first exile (Matt. 1:17, 23; John 1:14), so he will come again that we might dwell in the heavenly Jerusalem (Rev 21:24). In the meantime, let our faith define us, not the world, so that we may be found without defilement at his appearing (21:27).

Read Esther at Christmas, until the Son of God appear. Be joyful and celebrate, for we have received relief from our enemy (Esther 9:22; Col. 2:15).

Evangelism throughout the Generations

“In a fair bit of Western evangelicalism, there is a worrying tendency to focus on the periphery. . . . [Dr. Paul Hiebert] analyzes his heritage in a fashion that he himself would acknowledge is something of a simplistic caricature, but a useful one nevertheless. One generation of Mennonites believed the gospel and held as well that there were certain social, economic, and political entailments. The next generation assumed the gospel, but identified with the entailments. The following generation denied the gospel: the “entailments” became everything. Assuming this sort of scheme for evangelicalism, one suspects that large swaths of the movement are lodged in the second step, with some drifting toward the third.”

D.A. Carson, Basics for Believers: An Exposition of Philippians (Baker, 1996)

Reading for Preaching

Arie C. Leder

The constant pressure of relevance drives some preachers to movies and novels as illustrations or even as the fundamental texts for their sermons. Because contemporary seekers do not know–may even be offended by–the old, old story, contemporary fiction is an effective bridge to a hearing of the gospel. This assumes, of course, that the preacher’s fiction of choice is a known quantity for the seeker. What if they haven’t seen the movie or read the book? Not to worry, just retell the story to get into that story, so that maybe they’ll be willing to hear the old, old story during the last few minutes of your “talk.”

Wait a minute! Isn’t that what we used to do, take time to read and explain the old, old story? Do teachers of English literature use a “known” contemporary text to get the student into an “ancient” text, Pride and Prejudice, The Canterbury Tales, or even The Great Gatsby? Do you first watch one movie in order to understand another?

What is the relationship between our reading, or movie watching, and hearing the gospel as expressed in the ancient texts the Church privileges as Scripture?

Reflecting on Madeleine L’Engle’s fiction, Sally Thomas recalls that “as a child, raised on a relatively secular diet of mainstream Protestantism and utterly unaware of the existence of any theological problem beyond being mean to somebody on the playground, I was captivated by the notion that there was such a thing as evil and, conversely, that there was such a thing as good. The idea, further, that even the weak and the flawed were called to the battle–that there even was a battle–roused something in my imagination that years of Sunday School had somehow failed to touch.”(“Fantasy and Faith,” First Things [November 2007], 16.) But the biblical story is filled with wickedness and evil, goodness and grace. Why weren’t those stories told? Maybe because the teachers couldn’t abide the womanizing Samson, hatred between brothers, the depravity of sin manifested in the lives of all the biblical saints. And reconciliation.

Thomas concludes: “the novels themselves were not the gospel, and I don’t think I ever mistook them as such. But they awakened my mind to the idea of a universe in which, even in distant galaxies, God is praised in the familiar words of the Psalms.” Burying oneself into good literature is fine, La Suite Française is achingly beautiful. But it isn’t privileged Scripture. Why not read Scripture as intensively? Ask of it the questions you address your favorite fiction? It has long been the classic that discloses the human condition for what it really is, that speaks the truth about impious believers and arrogant seekers, and that, if you are willing to hear it, will move you mysteriously to the grace of God. Let that classic help us to penetrate to the human condition depicted in all sorts of fiction.

Dear BOT: About the proposed new Form of Subscription

Christian Reformed Church in North America
Attn: Form of Subscription Revision Task Force
2850 Kalamazoo Ave. SE
Grand Rapids, MI 49560

Dear Fellow Servants of Jesus Christ:

We are writing to your committee to communicate our comments and suggestions regarding the proposed revisions to the Form of Subscription circulated to the churches through a memo from the office of the Executive Director dated August 27, 2007.

We wish to express our appreciation for the thought and effort that has been put into your initial report and for your efforts that have prompted our council and, we are certain many others as well, to once again think seriously about what it means for the Christian Reformed Church to be a confessionally Reformed denomination in 21st century North American culture. While we do indeed appreciate the obvious thought and effort evident in the document, we must also raise a number of serious concerns regarding the proposed revisions and the theological assumptions that seem to lie behind them.

There are, first of all, a number of logical inconsistencies or fallacies in the report. The report states on page one, “[T]he second [assumption] (that a regulatory instrument is needed to keep us orthodox) is increasingly being called into question.” Simply because it [the FOS] is being questioned, does not mean that the aforesaid questions are valid. One is left to wonder, if no regulatory instrument exists, then by what standard will we be able to judge ourselves to have remained orthodox, if that is indeed our desire. It is questionable given the historical experience of our tradition (the Afscheiding of 1834 and the Doleantie of 1886) that orthodoxy, in any meaningful sense, would long survive the revisions proposed by the committee. On the contrary, if history is any indicator, these proposed revisions would likely lead to heterodox church doctrine and practice, and occasion the very schism they wish to avert. Individual conscience appears to be the only safeguard remaining to preserve orthodoxy, but this is an unreliable defense at best. The proposed revisions would open to the door for individual interpretation and privilege such interpretation over and against communal interpretation of Scripture and theology.

The report also states, “Ironically it has been under the current FOS’s stern watch that a significant and increasing neglect of the confessions has occurred.” There are two logical problems with this statement. First of all, because deviation from accepted norms has occurred, “under the current FOS’s stern watch” does not in any way imply a weakness or deficiency in the FOS, but rather in our willingness to live up to our covenantal promises as officebearers. Second, it strains the limits of credulity to believe that the proposed revisions will resolve the problem of neglect that the committee identifies. If anything the proposed revisions are likely to further exacerbate the problem rather than resolve it, unless one considers ignoring the problem an acceptable solution. The proposed “Covenant of Ordination” states, “We accept the historic confessions: the Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort, as well as Our World Belongs to God: A Contemporary Testimony, as faithful expressions of the church’s understanding of the gospel for its time and place, which define our tradition and continue to guide us today.”

It is difficult to understand how the confessions could offer any guidance or serve to define our identity if we are able to reject them at will if they conflict with “our understanding of the Scriptures”. It is also difficult to understand how the confessions could be viewed as, “faithful expressions of the church’s understanding of the gospel for its time and place,” if they are so evidently deficient.

In addition to these logical fallacies, there are also historical inaccuracies in the report. Some of these, including the occasion of the Afscheiding of 1834 and the Doleantie of 1886 and their relationship to a similar attitude of confessional laxity have already been alluded to. In addition, the report states, “It seems clear to our committee that, historically, the FOS has functioned negatively to effectively shut down discussion on various confessional issues rather than positively to encourage the ongoing development of the confessions in the life of the church. In other words, the FOS has been used to define a standard of purity in the church more than being a witness to unity.” This is simply not the case as recent discussions/disagreements regarding women in office, the revision of Q&A 80 of the Heidelberg Catechism, children at the Lord’s Supper and many other issues clearly demonstrate.

On a more technical note, the committee has clearly gone beyond its mandate to proposed revisions to the FOS. The proposed revisions are in actuality a replacement of the current FOS, not a revision of it. In addition, the inclusion of Our World Belongs to God: A Contemporary Testimony, as a document equal to the confessions also goes far beyond the mandated bounds of the committee’s assigned work. For these reasons we encourage the committee to significantly re-think the proposed revisions.

In the Service of Christ and his Church,

First Christian Reformed Church
1450 Catherine Ave.
Muskegon, MI 49442

Michael Borgert, Pastor
Allan VanderPloeg, Clerk of Council

Published with permission

Latest Meeting of the Returning Church

by The Returning Church Committee

On September 13 there was a meeting of the Returning Church in Oskaloosa, Iowa, organized by Rev. Marv Leese (Bethel CRC, Oskaloosa) and Rev. Jack Gray (Sully CRC, IA). There were about 85 in attendance which is a good starting point and a show of God's blessing.

Rev. Leese opened the meeting with a mediation on John 17:20-23 and Jesus' prayer for unity in the church. Rev. CJ denDulk (Trinity CRC, Sparta, MI) followed by speaking on II Kings 22 and Josiah's reforms based on the discovery of God's Word. Unity and God's Word certainly were central themes for the evening.

There was also a Q&A time where various issues and topics were raised, including biblical complementarianism, nurturing our covenant youth, the "Form of Subscription" revisions (see below) and other challenges to ministry. It was noted that the CRC has always sought to be biblical, and that must be encouraged and insisted upon going forward.

The question was asked, "What are you 'returning' to?" That is a great question and one that needs to be brought up often. The reply went something like this - we are prone to wander - as individuals, as congregations and as denomination. And recognizing that fact we must return to God every day, seeking Him at His Word. This Returning Church movement is not issue-centered, as some have claimed, but focused on returning us back to God and living for His glory each and every day.

This meeting in Iowa was almost one year to the date of the first Returning Church meeting in Byron Center, MI. God has seen fit to draw many people into the discussion around both the U.S. and Canada. May God answer our prayers and bring genuine revival and reform to the CRC.

The following day, Rev. Henry Reyenga (Family of Faith CRC, Monee, IL) and Rev. Ben Tol (1st CRC, South Holland, IL) invited several pastors to meet at 1st CRC in South Holland, IL, to further the discussion about particular issues and to introduce others to the ideas behind this movement. Many expressed a growing need for theological classes – where churches can show their unity in working together without binding their consciences. Again, biblical complementarianism and the "Form of Subscription" were discussed.

All of your church Council's should have received a copy of the proposed revision to the “Form of Subscription” that all office-bearers sign in the CRC. There are some concerns with the revisions. If you’d like to see more of that discussion, go to www.returningchurch.blogspot.com. Several pastors are meeting next week in West Michigan to discuss this with the hopes to come up with an outline that churches can use to formulate overtures if they so choose. That outline will be available if you would like it. The “Form of Subscription” stands at the heart of the CRC being a confessional church, so this won’t be the last email mentioning it.

We encourage the gathering of pastors and elders in your area and when you do, to stay in contact with us. We will advertise on the blog and also via email, if you'd like. In the meantime, keep our denomination a matter of your prayers. We certainly all need it as we tread these waters and seek to faithfully minister to the congregations and community in which God has placed us.

In Christ,
The Returning Church

The Sufferer's Wisdom: The Book of Job

by Ellen F. Davis

“It is safe to say that at the present time the church makes little use of the book of Job for its pastoral ministry. This has not always been the case. The medieval church made heavy use of it in preparing Christian souls to deal with suffering without falling away from their faith. But the modern church has pulled back, even in recent decades. Episcopalians may discover a sign of our retreat in the latest revision of The Book of Common Prayer (1979). The Burial Office retains the luminous affirmation: “I know that my Redeemer liveth” (Job 19:25). But gone is Job’s statement of resigned grief: “The Lord gave, and the Lord hath taken away; blessed be the name of the Lord” (1:21). “The Lord hath taken away”–does that in fact express resignation, or is it the beginning of an accusation? That troublingly ambiguous statement is in the 1928 version of The Book of Common Prayer, but the 1979 version pitched it out. And one must ask, Why? Have we grown afraid to lodge the responsibility for our grief with the Lord, as Job so consistently does?

"The focal point of the book is not God's justice . . . , but rather the problem of human pain: how Job endures it, cries out of it, wrestles furiously with God in the midst of it, and ultimately transcends his pain--or better, is transformed through it."

-from Getting Involved with God (Cambridge: Cowley, 2001), 121, 122.

Five Reasons for Reconsidering the New Form of Subscription

Excerpted from a letter to the Board of Trustees of the CRCNA

by Raymond A. Blacketer

As for the deficits of the report, I offer a brief summary. First, the report presents a highly skewed interpretation of Reformed church history and the role of the Form of Subscription (FOS) in that history. It demonstrates no awareness of the role that the Form of Subscription played in the Secession (Afscheiding) of 1834 or the Doleantie (Abraham Kuyper's Reformation of 1886), namely, that the loosening or removal of this instrument was among the causes of these secessions of orthodox, Reformed believers from a church in which the liberal, elite hierarchy no longer valued the confessions.

Further, it portrays the function of the Form of Subscription in exaggerated, overly dramatic terms as a kind of tool of Calvinist Inquisition, or an Ecclesiastical Gestapo, which has little basis in historical fact or in the normal functioning of this document in the life of our churches.

Thirdly, the report makes the unsubstantiated and easily refuted claim that the FOS has stifled discussion and silenced dissent in the CRCNA. Given the healthy, if sometimes bitter, debate our churches have carried on over the past decades over the ordination of women, the relationship between creation and science, the revision of Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 80, and children at the Lord's Supper, this contention is self-evidently false. The report casts doubt on whether “a regulatory instrument is needed to keep us orthodox.” Aside from the dubious and highly debatable nature of this claim, it was not the committee’s mandate to fundamentally alter the nature of the Form of Subscription, but, more modestly, to make it clearer and more understandable for officebearers, and to anticipate and forestall some of the objections and misconceptions that officebearers might have.

Fourth, the committee represents a very one-sided perspective that is strongly biased against the Reformed confessional tradition and that is steeped in the dubious claims of post-modernism, which relativizes and temporizes all truth. It is not the place of a task force to decide for the churches that our Form of Subscription no longer speaks to our current intellectual climate. Rather than accommodating ourselves to this reigning cultural world-view, we as a church should be resisting this radical subjectivism. C. S. Lewis famously criticized this phenomenon, which he called “chronological snobbery,” as “the uncritical acceptance of the intellectual climate common to our own age and the assumption that whatever has gone out of date is on that account discredited” (Surprised by Joy, 207).

Finally, the task force has exceeded its mandate and authority by elevating the Contemporary Testimony to a doctrinal standard. In addition to its failure to carefully study the nature and function of confessional subscription in our Dutch Reformed tradition and in other confessional traditions (e.g. Lutheran and Presbyterian), the committee has failed to reflect theologically on the distinction between a frequently revised and less binding contemporary testimony and the historic Reformed confessions.

In sum, I foresee that this report in its present state will be unacceptable to many officebearers and church councils and consistories. It undermines our confessional tradition, which is the one element that binds all of the various mindsets of the CRC together. It is certain to cause division and has great potential to lead to secession from the church, a secession which, unlike that of the early 1990's, would be historically justifiable on the basis of the 1834 and 1886 secessions. Moreover, it will further deepen the distrust that many members feel regarding the confessional integrity and sincerity of the denomination and its leadership.

Sincerely, in the work of Christ's kingdom, and in the service of the universal church and as an ordained servant in the Christian Reformed Church in North America.

Raymond A. Blacketer is minister of the Neerlandia (Alberta) Christian Reformed Church.

When you recite the Apostles’ Creed and say, “I believe . . . .”

“The man or woman in the early centuries of the Christian tradition who with great seriousness and excitement said ‘I believe’ and then repeated the Christian community’s confession of faith was not attempting to state the personal beliefs of a private individual. On the contrary, the primary intention and meaning of that affirmation was to identify herself or himself as a participating member of a community and a tradition, both of which were quite objective to the individual and, in fact, formative of that individual’s new life.

“Fundamental, important beliefs thus point not so much to a private subjective world as they point to some historical tradition and to the community that bears that tradition and lives from or within it. The symbolic contents of the creed, what was believed, were thus actually more creative of the individual’s inner or subjective life than the reverse; and that public content had that crucial shaping role because it was, in turn, the significant factor creative of the tradition in question, of the community in which every individual lived and acted, of the ‘world’–nature, history, the divine–surrounding the persons in that tradition and community.

“‘Belief’ on the deepest level has reference to the symbolic forms that structure the perspectives, the norms, and thus the life of objective historical communities. This is evident enough in religious communities where there is an explicit correlation or coherent unity among beliefs about reality (expressed in a creed or its equivalent), rules or law covering ordinary behavior, rituals and practices, and thus a total and all-encompassing style of life shared by the whole community.

“To say ‘I believe’ in that context is first of all to associate oneself as participant on the deepest level in such an objective religious and yet also social world borne by a given historical religious tradition and embodied in both the inner and the outer life of each member of that community.”

Langdon Gilkey, Message and Existence. An Introduction to Christian Theology (Minneapolis: Seabury, 1979), 24-25. (Emphasis added.)

The Covenant and Infant Baptism

a sermon by Calvin P. Van Reken*
Scripture reading: Genesis 17 and Galatians 3

Today in the church there are many people who wonder why we baptize infants. Even some who are Christian Reformed think it acceptable, maybe even preferable, to dedicate babies. But we didn’t dedicate Austin John this morning – he was baptized. God is the one who acts in baptism, the minister is only God’s agent.

This morning Austin's parents did not dedicate him to God. No, this morning God did something, God claimed Austin as His very own child. Dedication is something we do. Baptism is something God does.

This morning I want to tell you why children, even infants, receive baptism. In telling you about this I will need to touch on what baptism means. For this I will need to explain the broader context, the greater reality, of which baptism is a part. Let me start, though, with the underlying reason why so many people today struggle with infant baptism. That reason is that our society is radically individualistic. The church and popular theology have been significantly affected by this individualism.

Radical Individualism

At the beginning of its European immigrant origins, America was settled populated with people who were willing to leave the familiar surroundings of villages and cities, of family and friends, to come to the New World; striking out on their own where the success and failure, life and death, would be almost entirely up to their individual abilities. They did not and could not count on any social network to support them. It was up to each individual to make it in the world. Of course, there was cooperation, but it only worked when it was to everyone’s benefit. “If I can get ahead by working with you, or helping you, then I’ll do it, but not simply because of other social ties, not because you live in my village or even because we are related.”

What developed then was a society where the individual’s decisions were the most important in determining the course of that person’s life. A society in which social ties were largely based on individual self-interest. You can see the effects of this today: while counties in Europe have become increasingly socialistic, setting up programs so that everyone has health care, retirement income, education, and the like. The US has been very reluctant to follow Europe’s example. (I’m not here making any claim about whether that’s good or bad, just that the US is different.)

We can see this radical individualism in our own attitudes, too. It’s possible, even common, in the US for one family member to be quite wealthy, and his brothers and sisters to just struggle to get by. You may have some very wealthy friends, but they probably have never given you any money. Our idea is that each person is responsible for his or her own success and failure, even members of the same family.

It’s quite different other places. In parts of Africa, if one family member starts a business and has success, all his family members, relatives, even fellow tribes members will come to him with expectations of help. One person cannot succeed unless everyone in his clan does. This makes it very hard to succeed, to build and accounts in part for some of the financial troubles in Africa.

The reason people have a problem with infant baptism

Now, what does this have to do with infant baptism? Well, individualism says each person stands or dies on his/her own merits. Apply that to Christianity and it means each person as an individual stands or falls on his/her own. It isn’t your family, or relatives, or church that secures your salvation, you must do it yourself.

Wait a minute, though, we Protestants know the basic teaching of salvation that it is not earned at all, it is by God’s grace in Jesus Christ through faith. The requirement on our part is to have faith, so radical individualism concludes each individual must have personal faith to be saved. Now little children do not have any faith in Jesus, a three month old can hardly frame even simple ideas, he’s not at a stage of basic recognition of what is familiar and what is not. The fact that small infants can’t have any faith in Jesus seems to imply that they can’t be saved–so they shouldn’t be baptized.

Let me make it clear, the main reason people in the US object to baptizing infants is due to the influence of radical individualism which says each and every individual needs to have faith of his or her own to be saved. Now, while radical individualism may be a good way to think if you want a prosperous society, it isn’t the basis for how God thinks or acts. So let’s consider the account in the Bible in which God explains how he planned to save us.

God’s Deep and Wide Covenant

In Genesis 17, God confirms his covenant with Abraham. A covenant is sometimes said to be like a contract where each party promises something and agrees to some conditions. A person could have a contract to supply windows for a new house, that’s his side of the deal and in return he will get paid. But we didn’t really have a contract with God Almighty; he simply announces what he will do and what our responses to Him must be.

Look at what God says in verse 7 of Genesis 17. “I will establish my covenant as an everlasting covenant between me and you and your descendants after you for the generations to come, to be your God and the God of your descendants after you.” Here you should note four things. First, that God establishes his covenant. It isn’t contingent on Abraham, it doesn’t depend on his descendants, God establishes it. Second, it is an everlasting covenant, it is established by God. He makes it and he will never let go of the promises included in it. Third, one promise that God makes is that he will be Abraham’s God. That is, Abraham will belong to God. This is a promise of salvation. Fourth and important for us this morning as we consider infant baptism, the covenant is not just between God and Abraham but “Abraham and his descendants for the generations to come.”

God doesn’t just think in terms of individuals, his eye is on whole generations of a family. God not only makes promises to living persons, but to future generations. His covenant grace is deep; it is generational.

The idea is rather simple, really. Remember, being in the covenant means you belong to God. Now suppose someone, say Bob, is a rancher and Bob owns a herd of cattle that roam around the range. They all have Bob’s brand on them. One day Bob is out checking his herd and he finds that some new calves were born. Now consider this: to whom do the calves belong? Is this a hard question? Bob doesn’t think, “When these calves grow up I can buy them.” He doesn’t worry that they don’t have his brand on them. Rather he rounds up the new calves and puts his brand on them, they belong to him. Infant baptism is God putting his name on a child who belongs to him. He is claiming a child as his own. He shows us that the child is in the covenant.

In Genesis 17, God goes on to tell Abraham that the sign of this everlasting covenant is to be circumcised. Each of Abraham’s male descendants must receive circumcision when they are eight days old. This was branding them physically so that they would be identifiable as belonging to God. And Abraham is told not just to circumcise his own sons, but anyone in his household.

Listen to Genesis 17:13 – “Whether born in your household or bought with your own money they must be circumcised.” You see, the covenant extends not only to Abraham and his sons but to anyone that belongs to Abraham. It makes since, what belongs to Abraham, belongs to God, because all belongs to God.

God’s covenant of grace not only deep, extending through all generations, it is also wide. It includes even those who are not, physically speaking, the children of Abraham. And right after explaining circumcision to Abraham, God goes on to make it clear that girls and women are in the covenant too. He tells Abraham that her name will not be Sarah; He gives her a new name. Who gave you your name? Wasn’t it your parents? The ones you belong to? So by renaming Sarah, God makes it clear that Sarah is also in God’s covenant.

So God’s plan of salvation is to make a covenant with Abraham, to be His God to save him and his wife, his sons, his daughters, his servants; down through the generations, long after Abraham himself is dead. God’s salvation extends to all who are connected to Abraham,

Covenant “connections”

Now this seems to our ears rather unfair. Why should Abraham’s great grandson be included in God’s covenant, while some other person’s grandchild is not included? It would be fairer to let each person decide for himself or herself whether he or she wants to be in the covenant. Then it would be each person’s choice rather than what ancestral connections you have. You see, our radical individualism finds a flaw in God’s plan. Salvation is too important; it shouldn’t be based on what connections you have.

The fact is, though, that a lot of other important things that happen to a person are because of their connections to others, not because of any individual choice. My great grandparents packed up and left the Netherlands and moved to the US. As a result, I am a citizen of the USA, not the Netherlands. I’m a member of the CRC, not the Protestant Church of the Netherlands. I went to Calvin College, not the Free University in Amsterdam. My parents decided to live in the suburbs of Chicago, so I cheer for the Chicago Bears and the Bulls and the Blackhawks. Not for the Detroit Lions, Pistons, or Red Wings. When the University of Michigan plays Michigan State, I hope they both lose.

All of these facts about me can be traced to a decision that my great grandparents made, I had no voice in their choice, but it had a great effect on my life. It’s true in all our lives that who we are connected to makes a lot of difference.

It’s also true in the Bible. Consider how the fortunes of Israel would ebb and flow depending on what sort of king they had. If they had an evil king, they would soon have trouble in their lives. God’s judgment affected the whole nation. Foreign peoples would invade and threaten Israel or Judah. Living under a bad king meant a more difficult life, perhaps even an early death.

A second and important case in the Bible is the fall into sin. When Adam and Eve sinned, every one of their descendants, including you and me, was seriously affected. Our lives were altered for the worse, far worse. Instead of loving God and each other, we are born with a disposition to hate God and to hate others.

We got this disposition to be self-centered and fearful because of a decision of Adam and Eve. But we had no part of it, did we? We weren’t back there in the garden, chosing to sin against God. Why should we have to suffer so because of the decision of someone else? Well, because we are connected to Adam and Eve, they are our parents and what they decide has effects for us. So the idea that Abraham’s descendants are favored by being included in the covenant with God, even though they didn’t choose it fits a pattern we know. God does not deal with us based only/primarily on the choices we each make individually. He works with families, communities, nations, and humankind as a whole.

If we now look at Galatians 3, we can see how God’s covenant was advanced perfectly in Jesus Christ.

Connected to Jesus by faith

Jesus, a descendant of Abraham, came into our sinful mess and lived a perfect life; he died as a sacrifice for the sins of those who belong to God and he rose again. The connection that matters for salvation is not a blood connection to Abraham, but a faith connection to Abraham’s seed, believing not just that he died but that he’s living today. Such faith connects us to him and all the promises and benefits that he has earned--salvation, peace, joy, contentment, an eternal home. These belong to us as well because we are connected to him. We are not physical descendants of Jesus – our connection is not one of blood – our connection is by faith.

That brings us back to the question, though; don’t we each individually need to have faith to be connected to Jesus? To be baptized? The straight answer is – NO.

Remember God works through families and communities; families with a true faith, communities of faith. What belongs to a family of faith and to a community of faith – belongs to God. Sometimes a person will reject the faith of his or her family and break off any connection with the community of faith. When that happens, we don’t know exactly what to say. God knows who belongs to him – we can’t always tell, but usually we can. A child in a Christian home is a child of the covenant – there’s faith in that home. A family or a person who chooses to identify with a community of faith – there’s faith there, too.

The problem with our radical individualism is that it robs us of the comfort and consolation of God’s grace so often because we know ourselves too well – our sin and lack of faith to be comfortable with the idea that our future condition and our eternal destiny depends on us. If you are baptized into Christ Jesus your connection to him by faith is what makes all the difference.

The child that was baptized this morning is too little to have his own faith yet. Someday you may be too old and perhaps you may not be able to remember who you are. Sometimes even now you may be overwhelmed and wonder whether you have faith.

Remember, what matters is that you belong to Jesus, that you are connected to him, not just as an individual, but because you are a member of his family. You have been baptized, and God has placed the mark of his ownership on you. So even when your faith wavers, or your mind wanders, or your life seems headed in the wrong direction, you need to that you belong body and soul to your faithful Savior, Jesus Christ. This is our only comfort in life and death.

*Dr. Van Reken delivered this sermon at Beckwith Hills Christian Reformed Church, Grand Rapids, Michigan, earlier this year.

This is my body
Arie C. Leder

Every Sunday they worship among us, sing with us, and enjoy coffee and cookies afterwards. Like us they sit with their own or “adopted” families. No more noticeable than the young couple almost sitting on top of each other, the spoiled child loudly manipulating her parents, or the seniors occupying the back pew, they belong; they are our “Friends.”

Sometime during the week, several times a month, “Friendship” groups gather in many Christian Reformed churches in Canada and the United States. These groups are served by Friendship Ministries (www.friendship.org), whose mission is “to share God’s love with people who have cognitive impairments and to enable them to become an active part of God’s family.” And active they are.

Frank loves singing. The music he sings is recognizable, but not always pleasant for pew neighbors. Frank specializes making a joyous noise to the Lord. Moreover, if it’s a hymn Frank learned before the gray hymnal appeared he sings it blue hymnal style, politically correct changes in the words notwithstanding. Judy worships with deep certainty: every liturgical “Amen” is underscored by her own “Amen!” Her aging father was not always pleased with her worship style, her wanting to stand, by herself (she is wheelchair bound), finding the hymns, by herself. And then there is, let me call him George. When he sings he often raises his left arm, makes a fist, and then pumps the arm up throughout the song. More power to him. There are many such friends, cognitively and physically impaired, who belong to the body of Christ. Does this mean that the body of Christ is impaired?

Broken body theology

Disability has entered the theological discussion in articles such as “The Body of Christ has Down’s Syndrome,” (Journal of Pastoral Theology 13.2 [Fall 2003]: 66-78), by John Swinton: “The Disabled Body of Christ as A Critical Metaphor–Towards a Theory (Journal of Religion, Disability and Health [ 7.4 (2003]: 25-40), by Susanne Rappmann; “Redeemed Bodies: Fullness of Life,” (Human Disability and the Service of God. Reassessing Religious Practice [Abingdon, 1998], 123-143), by Barbara A. B. Patterson; and “God in our Flesh: Body Theology and Religious Education” (Religious Education 98.1 [2003]: 82-94) by Christopher K. Richardson.

Opinions move from the disabled body being a metaphor (Rappmann), to an argument for disability as another kind of diversity (Patterson), to the position that the body, including its disabled form, “is the midpoint and locus of communication between God and us,” that “the body becomes the speaker, rather than the spoken to; it is the teacher rather than the taught. Not objects to be shaped by scripture and tradition, but active Words of God to shape scripture and tradition, bodies (which ultimately means whole human beings as body-selves) are given a place befitting that of the children of God.” In other words, bodies have revelatory potential. (Richardson, 84-85, representing the position of James B. Nelson’s Body Theology). Broken bodies, then, are as “whole” as other “normal” bodies (authors speak of the “hegemony” of the normal); God doesn’t make mistakes. Students preparing for a career in speech pathology learn about the “deaf culture” which opposes hearing implants. Such intervention would be cultural suicide. Sign language is normal, not abnormal.

The Christian tradition holds that when Jesus Christ comes again the blind will see, the lame will walk, the deaf will hear, the lepers will be cured, and the dead will be raised. Christ himself provided a foretaste of this new world (Matt. 11:4-6). The new earth, in which righteousness dwells (2 Peter 3:13), will be discontinuous with the old world, including all those disorders, personal and social, that characterized the old order (Rev. 21: 3-4). The new view argues for continuity between the present and the future. One might say, the future is now. In this view the body defines us: your body, my body, whatever its shape or condition, I imagine, is the means of communication between you and God. You are your body. Somehow, I’m not comforted by that thought.

The body that defines us

The impulse toward the newer body theology no doubt is rooted in the marginalization and abuse disabled people have suffered throughout the ages and the desire to correct this. Their inclusion in theological reflection is healthy, as is the renewed focus on the role of the body as such. It should, however, take into consideration the church’s classic theological formulations about these matters. Classic Christian thought is clear about one thing: we are not our bodies, whatever their condition or shape; we are body and soul. This is universally the case. From this it follows that the body, whatever its shape or condition, does not make us who we are. There is a spiritual component that must be considered.

Scripture has a high view of the body–it was created good and for human enjoyment in the service of God. Nevertheless, it declares that the post-fall body suffers all kinds of brokenness, so much so, that Paul defines the body as “the perishable” that will arise “imperishable” on the last day (1 Cor 15:50-56). The greatest deformity the body suffers is sin (Rom 6:11-14), which expresses itself in all kinds of brokenness, physical and spiritual. From this point of view, the normal human state is that of being broken, by sin and its consequences. Because noone escapes this reality the faithful are urged to call upon the elders in times of sickness and sin, both of which disable the human person, that there may be well-being and forgiveness (James 5:14-16).

The body that is sick or stricken by sin, Martin C. Albl argues, is taken up into a wider web of relationships:

“The patient does not experience healing as an isolated individual. The community body, led by the elders, must gather and show its united support through prayer, confession, and public ritual. As integrity is restored to the individual body, so it is reinforced in the community body.

“Beyond the community level, the individual healing has cosmic significance. Healing of a single person does not merely ‘symbolize’ or ‘foreshadow’ his or her eschatological salvation. Rather, the ritual anointing and community prayers move the patient into the realm of both bodily healing and eschatological salvation. The system does not separate the two.” (“‘Are any among you sick?’ The Health Care System in the letter of James,” Journal of Biblical Literature 121.1 [2002]: 142-143.)

The community Albl refers to is, of course, the church, the body of Jesus Christ. That body defines the body and soul of all who are its members by faith. We are not our bodies. Frank is not his body, neither are Judy, George, or Martin, who once told a minister that he was preaching too long, their bodies. All of us, broken in body and soul, may be comforted by the truth that we “belong, body and soul, in life and in death, to (our) faithful Savior Jesus Christ” (Heidelberg Catechism, QA 1).

More on this next month.

What They're Saying

God’s spiritual discipline

“The connection between apatheia and self-giving love (agapé) is crucial. In teaching apatheia as a spiritual discipline, the constant emphasis of the patristic theologians is on growing to be free of irrational feelings and fantasies that stem from self-love, from vanity and wounded pride. That is, apatheia, as either an attribute of God or a Christian virtue in this world and ‘beatitude’ for the world to come, is the opposite of what we normally call an emotional reaction. It is, rather, an aspect of the ‘eternal changelessness’ of divine love, ‘God’s everlasting outpouring,’ flowing in and (sic) from the Godhead and at work also in the human creature.

“Viewed in relation to divine love, it seems clear that the doctrine of apatheia functions to make two crucial assertions about God’s involvement with the world. Negatively, it refutes the possibility that the God known to Israel can ever become estranged from humanity or any part of it–unlike the highly emotional and therefore fickle gods worshiped by the Mesopotamians, the Greeks, or the Romans. Positively, the doctrine of apatheia affirms that God can be genuinely involved in events that happen in time, in human events, without either being formed or diminished by them.

“It is especially apt to consider the patristic teaching of apatheia . . . because I believe that the biblical concept of covenant is a way of making, through the medium of narrative, these same crucial assertions. Covenant is the stabilizing mechanism that allows God to remain profoundly involved in the contingent events of history, responding in various ways to the often distressingly unstable human situations and heart, yet without essential change in either the divine being or the divine disposition toward those whom God has made. The first indication of this function of covenant occurs within the early chapters of Genesis, when the original covenant is established, through Noah, with ‘all flesh’ (Gen 9:17). It is telling that the recognition that hurts God to the heart and leaders to the flood–namely, that ‘every inclination of the thought of [the human] heart is purely evil all the time’ (Gen 6:5)–is the very recognition that, immediately after the flood, moves God to forswear further destruction and enter into covenant with this creature whose heart inclines to evil ‘from his youth’ (8:21). And from this recognition the whole of biblical history unfolds. Now, it is foreseeable that there will be other occasions for God to be ‘hurt to the heart,’ yet covenant represents God’s own renunciation of an emotional reaction. It is God’s choice, one might say, of the spiritual discipline of apatheia.”

Ellen F. Davis, “Vulnerability, the Condition of the Covenant,” in The Art of Reading Scripture (Eerdmans, 2003), 292-293.

Sesquicentennial Reflections

1857 - 2007: From CRC to ACRC?
Arie C. Leder

Since 1880 we have been known as the Christian Reformed Church, even though the adjective “Holland” was still attached at that time. It wasn’t our first name, however. From April 8, 1857, the birth date of the CRC, to 1880, the following names described us: Holland Reformed, True Dutch Reformed, the Christian Seceded Church, the True Holland Reformed Church. The latter name was in use from 1864. Churches were given the freedom not to use “true.” Our first local option decision.

The first hundred years
The variety of names discloses the nascent community’s struggle to define itself in the new world, not only in terms of its experiences in the Netherlands, but also the more recent attempts to distinguish itself from the Dutch Reformed Church (now the RCA) from whom our ancestors seceded in 1857. It was about being true to the Reformed traditions as they understood them.

On April 8, 1907 the CRC celebrated its 50th anniversary at the Auditorium on South Ionia Street in Grand Rapids, Michigan. The gathering, as it was called, consisted of opening and closing prayers, congregational and choral singing in English and Dutch, a poem of welcome, and several short speeches. Rev. Henry Beets delivered the first speech in English: “The Christian Reformed Church in its Origin and Period of Struggle.” The others, delivered in Dutch, were: “The Character of Our People, the Dark and the Light Side (“Het Karakter van ons Volk, naar Schaduw- en Lichtzijde.”) by Rev. I. Van Dellen; “Our Dangers” (Onze Gevaren”) by Rev. H. Van Hoogen (Read by Rev. J. W. Brink because Van Hoogen had died.); “The Christian Reformed Pulpit in America” (De Christelijk Gereformeerde Kansel in Amerika”) by Rev. K. Van Goor; and, “Our Calling and Ideals for the Future” (Onze Roeping en Idealen voor de Toekomst”) by Rev. J. Groen. These and other full length addresses may be found in J. Noordewier, et. al., Gedenkboek van het Vijftigjarig Jubileum der Christelijke Gereformeerde Kerk A.D. 1857-1907 (Grand Rapids: J. B. Hulst and B. Sevensma, 1907.).

By 1907 the CRC was on the way to becoming an American church. The founders of the church had passed on; a younger generation was in charge. The youthful vigor and immaturity of the CRC formed the basis for Van Hoogen’s reflection. He warned the CRC of the potential for recklessness; of the challenges of its diversity–at that time the variety of Dutch backgrounds that made it difficult to work together; and the questioning of the crucial difference between the world and the church so much a part of becoming more American. The CRC must remain, so Van Hoogen, counter-cultural.

Fifty years later Dr. John H. Kromminga reflected on the CRC’s one hundred years in his In The Mirror. An Appraisal of the Christian Reformed Church (Hamilton: Guardian, 1957). By this time post World War 2 immigration to Canada had begun to shape the CRC experience, the Dutch language had disappeared from almost all pulpits in the US and by the 1960s was heard from few pulpits in Canada. Our confessional roots were valued, church life began receiving a neo-Kuyperian sheen, mostly in Canada. But being a church in the world was still a challenge. Kromminga acknowledges that Americanization was a problem for the CRC, but that it also presented new opportunities. The isolation of language had been mostly overcome, but other forms of isolation remained: dependence on the Netherlands, the Reformed distinctiveness as expressed through separate institutions, and the lack of cooperation with other denominations. None of these enable true evangelism. “Isolationism,” he writes, “ fosters a diminished view of the needs of the world . . . has either no conception if the needs of the world or no concern with them” (53). But, “the perils of contact are essentially the perils of conformity.” One of the perils of greater contact in America is losing theological distinctiveness: “One student of American culture has spoken of a recent period in American history when ‘religion prospered while theology slowly went bankrupt.’ The fact is that American religion is theologically illiterate because that which was different was, by silent common consent, not to be mentioned in our democracy” (55).

He concludes his reflection on conformity thus:

“Contact with such [an American] environment must mean one of two things. It will mean conformity or it will mean friction. For theological distinctiveness is diametrically opposed to it. The Christian Reformed Church is lost if it conforms. No one can say in advance whether it can survive the friction which will result it retains its distinctiveness while establishing contact. And yet, in the face of all this, the church cannot rest satisfied with the isolated way.”

“Thus it would be sheer folly to act as if the situation of the Christian Reformed Church were secure and her future established. The realities of life are cruel and disturbing. The only possible course of action seems to be to retain and develop such an isolation as will produce distinctiveness–genuine distinctiveness; and then to proceed with that distinctiveness into aggressive contact. This, at the cost of the ease and tranquility of the denomination, would be a potential source of good, not only to the denomination itself, but to the other churches round about” (58).

From our CRC to ACRC: Ecclesiastical Syntax
We don’t yet know what the 2007 anniversary book of reflections will say about us. This much is true: The CRC of 1957 was not that of 1907, nor is the CRC of 2007 that of 1957. Kromminga’s challenge to make contact with churches outside of the CRC has been successful; it is doubtful that we have retained the theological distinctiveness he charged us to keep. We have had dialogue with the Roman Catholic Church about Lord’s Day 80; we participate in WARC, but NAPARC cancelled our affiliation. Preaching from the Heidelberg Catechism is not what it’s supposed to be. The psalms we sing today are the so-called seven-eleven choruses: snatches of praise phrases sung multiple times. Psalms to “regular” hymn tunes, never mind those in the Genevan tradition, do not characterize CRC congregational singing in the 21st century. We also have a sizable bureaucracy in Grand Rapids which, for better or worse, tries to steer the denomination from one vantage point; classical renewal began without synodical approval but with agency support; and local church councils are more deeply rooted in entrepreneurial management styles and views of the church than the confessions and traditional Reformed church polity envisions. The CRC is also more diversified, beyond the Dutch provinces. On a given Sunday services are conducted in English, Korean, Spanish, Chinese, Hmong, Laotian, and Vietnamese. Few church leaders, however, can speak more than one language. Our orthodoxy is shifting. In 2007 you will more likely get into trouble for political incorrectness than confessional heterodoxy. South of the border we are American, east-coast or west-coast American, West-Michigan or Iowa-American; those who call us Dutch don’t know us at all. We’re not what we were even fifty years ago. Nor are we agreed about which changes are for the better and which are not.

So, maybe a name change is needed. After all since 1880 we’ve had the same name, and many CRC congregations no longer use the denominational name. Apparently the Board of Trustees is also considering a new name (Has Synod asked them to do so?) Why not give ourselves a new name to reflect our post-modern identity in our 150th year? Sam Hamstra suggests we become the ACRC (Association of Christian Reformed Churches, in his “Modest Proposal,” [The Banner, March 2007.]), a proposal that shows how far conformity to the American religious scene–a danger Van Hoogen in 1907 and Kromminga in 1957 warned us against–has taken us. This move is on display in the ecclesiastical syntax. Let me explain.

The pronoun “our” appears 13 times in the 1907 anniversary speech titles: our church, our people, our mission, our publications, our dangers, our calling. “We” had an identity. The future was about us and our ideals. A deep sense of the youthful vigor of “our” community was encourages, then evaluated and judged. Kromminga’s 1957 appraisal is definite: the heritage, the isolation, the dangers of conformity. He reflects an intimate knowledge of a community striving to keep its identity while moving beyond its isolation.

Van Hoogen gave us “our” CRC; Kromminga “the” CRC; Hamstra gives us A-CRC. In 150 years we’ve moved from “our” self-understanding, to a challenge to break our isolation without undermining our theological distinctiveness, to an indefinite sense of our ecclesiastical identity and an openness to change that will not endure the friction, as Kromminga called it, of being true to our theological confession.

Synod’s first local option, in 1864, gave churches the right not to use the word “true” as part of the church’s name; Hamstra’s local option argues for the right of local churches to separate themselves from our church political identity. No more “our” CRC, no more “the” CRC; only an association of local churches doing their own thing. Happy 150th birthday

What They're Saying

A Christian University

“Today there is an intense interest, almost an obsession some would say, in diversity and pluralism. Within the worlds of higher education, a Christian university serves the great good of diversity and pluralism by being a different kind of university. It does not mimic the false pluralism and diversity that pretends our deepest differences make no difference. Rather, it engages within the bond of civility the differences that make the deepest difference.

“Today the Christian university is in crisis. At least in many institutions, there is a dying of the light. The crisis is often described as a crisis of secularization. But that, I would suggest , is not quite right. The secular, the saeculum, is the world of God’s creation and redeeming love. The crisis of the Christian university is more accurately described as a crisis created by the ambition to imitate other kinds of universities that false claim to be universities pure and simple. It is a crisis created by competing to belong to the second tier, or even the third tier, of schools that do not aspire to be Christian universities. It is a crisis created by envying excellence divorced from truth. Enough can never be said in favor of excellence, but it is small comfort for a Christian university to be recognized as being moderately good at being what it did not set out to be in the first place.

“The crisis is most accurately described, I believe, as a crisis of faith. The question that those who lead a Christian university must answer, and answer again every day, is whether the Christian proposal limits or illumines the university’s calling to seek and to serve veritas–to seek and to serve the truth.”

Richard John Neuhaus, “A University of a Particular Kind,” First Things (April 2007), 34-35.

What They're Saying

Bible Knowledge Exams

“Nonetheless, Americans remain profoundly ignorant about their own religions and those of others. According to recent polls, most American adults cannot name even one of the four Gospels, and many high-school seniors think that Sodom and Gomorrah were husband and wife. A few years ago, no one in Jay Leno's The Tonight Show audience could name any of the Twelve Apostles, but everyone was able to shout out the four Beatles.

“One might imagine that religious illiteracy is nothing more than a religious problem — a challenge for ministers, priests, rabbis, and imams. But in the United States today, presidents quote from the Bible during their inauguration speeches, members of Congress cite the "Good Samaritan" story in debates over immigration legislation, and politicians of all stripes invoke the Book of Genesis in debates over the environment. So religious ignorance is a civic problem, too.

“In an era when the public square is, rightly or wrongly, awash in religious rhetoric, can one really participate fully in public life without knowing something about Christianity and the world's other major religions? Is it possible to decide whether intelligent design is "religious" or "scientific" without some knowledge of religion as well as science? Is it possible to determine whether the effort to yoke Christianity and "family values" makes sense without knowing what sort of "family man" Jesus was? Is it possible to adjudicate between President Bush's description of Islam as a religion of peace and the conviction of many televangelists that Islam is a religion of war, without some basic information about Muhammad and the Quran?

“Unfortunately, U.S. citizens today lack this basic religious literacy. As a result, many Americans are too easily swayed by demagogues. Few of us are able to challenge claims made by politicians or pundits about Islam's place in the war on terrorism, or about what the Bible says concerning homosexuality. This ignorance imperils our public life, putting citizens in the thrall of talking heads and effectively transferring power from the Third Estate (the people) to the Fourth (the press).”

The foregoing is excerpted from Stephen Prothero, “Worshiping in Ignorance,” The Chronicle Review. The entire article is available on http://chronicle.com/free/v53/i28/28b00601.htm

What it means to be the Church of Jesus Christ

Reflections on an im“modest proposal”
Lobbying for the congregational way

Arie C. Leder

Almost twenty years ago Henry De Moor lamented the growth of ecclesiastical individualism in the CRC (“The CRC on the ‘Congregational Way’?” (Calvin Theological Journal 23.1 [1988]: 54-60). Within the CRC such individualism means that a local church’s council considers itself not only as having original authority but also such original authority that the broader assemblies, classis and synod, may under no circumstances violate the integrity of that council. Thus, a classis has no authority to depose a council, nor would a synod have the authority to depose a classis or a council.

De Moor cites the Maranatha Case (1918), the Common Grace Controversy (1924), and the more recent Goderich Case (1980s) to the contrary. Nevertheless, he argues, local autonomy still “finds a greater hearing among us than does well-established synodical precedent.” He continues:

“An increasing number of church councils . . . no longer feel the need to seek the Spirit’s guidance in the broader assemblies of Christ’s church. One consistory decides to install women elders in defiance of the present denominational covenant, . . . ; another decides to withhold certain quotas as an expression of locally held views that are firmly set in concrete; yet another publishes a hymnal for local congregational use because the denominational liturgical literature is ‘too confining’.” (56-57)

Something old something new

Almost twenty years later, Sam Hamstra’s “A Modest Proposal” (The Banner, March 2007, 18-20) suggests that “the congregational way” may be healthier than ever before in the history of the CRC. Essentially practical and a-theological (for an "A"CRC), Hamstra represents the entrepreneurial, voluntarist ecclesiology that has increasingly characterized conversation about the nature and task of the CRC. Hardly the clear but flawed theological position of Nelson Kloosterman and Lester De Koster, advocates of the local autonomy De Moor cites.

Within twenty years, then, the discussion has moved from reflecting theologically on the nature of the local church as representing the mystical body of Christ, to arguing for a more effective local church on practical grounds: the denominational approach is not working, let’s try the post-modern non-denominational approach; no reflection on the denomination as ecumenism in its simplest form. As in business, so in the church: if one model doesn’t work, let’s try another. Of this approach to decision-making De Moor writes:

“It is not in prayerful gatherings of office-bearers who take each other seriously as agents of Christ’s leading but in the privacy of home or office that arguments and lobbying tactics are conceived. An atmosphere of battle is created and the struggle is carried out in the printed page and in unofficial assemblies that smack of party gatherings. Inevitably, in such an environment, it is almost impossible to keep classical and synodical meetings from descending to Congress-like politics. As in that arena, where special interest groups labor mightily to pressure a majority in the assemblies to opt for ‘our side’ or even to work out some compromise, no matter how distasteful, so in the church—this rather than a collegial searching for the leading of God. In our secular society, even church government is losing its ‘vertical dimension.’” (57)

Do ut des-des ut do

The latter part of the 20th century saw lobbying of the right and left become, almost, normal church business in the CRC. The price: a loss of tens of thousands in membership, a diminished ownership of our historic confessional identity, and a steady drift towards evangelical entrepreneurialism.

As De Moor describes it, then it was the “Committee of the Concerned” versus the “Establishment.” Soon it would be the Committee for Women in the Christian Reformed Church who sat in synodical delegates’ chairs during coffee breaks or appeared en masse, dressed in white, when Synod discussed women in office. Then, an agency which, without synodical approval, began classical renewal programs, political correctness that opened the door to ministry for uncalled and unqualified and anchored the ill-fated Crossroads anti-racism program, the office of Social Justice (although an official agency, it lobbies for social justice positions not approved by Synod, such as the solution to Third World debt, but fails to help congregations to work out our common decisions on abortion, for example), and, more recently, Hearts Aflame, a group lobbying against Synod 2006's decision on women delegates at the broader assemblies. The pressure tactics of the right De Moor decries in his 1988 article have become those of the another “wing” of the CRC.

Whether anchored in a theology of the supreme authority of the local church, the politics of lobbying, or well-meant political correctnesses, these pressure tactics are foreign to the Reformed church polity as understood in the CRC. They balkanize the CRC into interest groups difficult to reconcile with the theological minds of the CRC defined by Henry Stob (the theologically safe, the militant, the positive), Henry Zwaanstra (Confessional Reformed, Separatist Calvinist, American Calvinists), James Bratt (the positive neo-Calvinists, the Confessionalist-seceder, and the defensive and introverted neo-Calvinist). They do express, however, an Americanization of the CRC, but not one envisioned by the American Calvinists Zwaanstra discusses. Lobbying is the American thing to do.

Moreover, pressure tactics do not fit a keen understanding of the church as a community held together by an agreed upon covenant on the church polity level, nor on the ecclesiological level: the church as a community not created by our covenanting with one another, but created by a covenant solemnly sworn by the shed blood of Jesus Christ. We don’t keep covenant because it’s good for us, or because it endorses a particular understanding of an issue, but because it is an essential part of our nature. Nor do we violate a covenant because the church does not satisfy what an individual, a local church, or an interest group believes ought to be true but is not, or not yet, agreed upon by the church. Temper tantrums are not approved ecclesiastical procedure.

Looking at our own heritage of differences

Edwin Chr. Van Driel, reflecting on the disputes and attempts at unity in the Episcopalian Church USA (ECUSA) writes (“God’s Covenant. What it means to be Church,” Christian Century, January 9, 2007, 8-9):

“It is God’s covenant that forms the basis of the church. Yes, those of us within the church will at some point find ourselves in disagreement. But our disagreements do not give us the right to suggest that one of us should leave the covenant–because it is God’s covenant, not ours. Nor do our disagreements give me the right to suggest that you should move to a table ‘further down’–because it is not my table you are invited to, but God’s table.”

“I’m not suggesting that the current disputes and differences in the churches are not serious, or that they do not reflect real and important theological differences. Still we are not invited to the covenant or the table on the basis of our theology; we were invited to the covenant long before we even had a theology. We are invited to the covenant because of grace.”

To make the point Van Driel rehearses the history of his own church, the former Nederlandse Hervormde Kerk (NHK; he calls it NRC), now the Protestant Church of the Netherlands (PKN), the church which the ancestors of the CRC left in 1834. He writes:

“Some will say that this approach to church and covenant sacrifices truth for unity. I would suggest that we take a lesson from the history of the Netherlands Reformed Church. In the 19th century, some of its ministers denied the resurrection or the divinity of Christ; another minister famously claimed to be a follower of Buddha. The leadership of the church refused to uphold the church’s confessional standards. As a result, the majority of the church seemed to have lost its theological identity.

“In this situation the orthodox minority found itself divided into two camps on how to respond. One camp thought the church’s theological character should be restored by its members appealing to the church’s courts and synod. If this did not help, the members would leave the church. This became known as the juridical way. For several decades the juridical camp made its appeals, and when these were unsuccessful, members of the dissenting group left and formed the Reformed Churches in the Netherlands (RCN). Meanwhile, the other minority group in the NRC followed the medical way: its members believed that as long as one is not prevented from preaching the gospel, one should never leave the church. They believed that the medicine of the gospel itself can heal a sick church, and although they were weakened by the loss of orthodox allies, members of this group continued to focus on preaching the gospel.

“The result seemed predictable. The RCN would become a conservative bulwark, its identity firmly protected by its juridical structure. The NRC would grow more and more liberal, with a slim and powerless conservative minority. But things turned out differently. One hundred years later the RCN found itself at the far left of the theological spectrum, and its international daughter churches, including the Christian Reformed Church in the U.S.A., declared themselves in impaired communion with their mother church. Meanwhile, in the 1930s and 1940s a spirit of renewal began to stir in the NRC. Liberals, middle-of-the-roaders and conservatives became discontented with the perceived theological wishy-washiness of the church.

“None of these groups gave up its particular approach to the gospel, but all realized that a church which does not firmly confesses its obedience to the gospel of Christ is null and void. In 1950 an overwhelming majority in the synod accepted a new, Christ-centered church order and restored the church’s ties to its confessional documents. The preaching of the gospel–and only the preaching–had healed the church.

“If this is what it means to be church, being church will never be easy. We find ourselves joined together with people we disagree with, people we do not necessarily like. But that is exactly what God’s covenant is all about: God reaches out to people who are not likable–people who are sinners. It is only because God graciously embraces these imperfect human beings that any of us have a chance to be included in God’s covenant.

“If this is what it means to be church, then being church is also profoundly countercultural. One reason why the Episcopalian left and right so easily embrace Archbishop Williams’s ideas may be that those ideas perfectly match the American emphasis on freedom and choice. If there is any place for the church to be countercultural, however, it is in situations in which we are called to remember our original covenant.

“‘You did not choose me but I chose you’ (John 15:16). As a church we are called, formed, judged and renewed not by our own choices, but only by God.” (8-9)

Now what?

In its solemn gatherings for worship and through all its assemblies, the CRC is an expression of the mystical body of Christ, who unites us to himself by the covenant he made in his blood. He made us before we made the CRC. That is our historic confession, warts and all. But none of those warts is the "congregational way," in any of its older or contemporary forms. Let’s keep the covenant into which Christ called us. Let’s keep the church polity covenant we believe best reflects that calling of our Lord.

Feminism and the Mary-Martha Story of Luke

"Martha, Martha...you are overanxious..."
by John Bolt

The Mary and Martha story (Luke 10:38- 42) has new traction these days as a proof-text for feminist educational activism—"out of the kitchen and into the academy"—but this is not how the tradition has understood it. On the contrary, the key point is not so much that Mary, the woman, has a mind and should be doing more than making soup and buns, but to call attention to the respective objects of their devotion. Martha is busy doing good things; Mary is attentive to Jesus and that is more important.

Rereading the anonymous fourteenth-century English spiritual classic, The Cloud of Unknowing, recently, I was led from the author’s own use of the Mary/Martha story (§§ 18–22) to self-examination and reflection on our contemporary church life. Specifically, are we too busy with this world? Are we so caught up in our programs, our campaigns to end poverty, eliminate racism, cool down our warming globe, stop all war etc., that we have forgotten what is truly important? And, then, if this is indeed the case, do we not have a clear indicator why we are so anxious, why we get involved in more and more "fix-it" projects?

I am often struck by the way in which the Bible writers juxtapose their stories as a way of pulling us back from possibly mistaken applications. Is it not interesting that the story which is often used to propel us toward good works and activism for social change, namely the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) is immediately followed by the Mary/Martha story and then, in the next chapter, with our Lord’s teaching on prayer (Luke 11: 1-13)? Note also that Jesus teaching on prayer concludes with a reference to the one most important thing to pray for—the Holy Spirit (vs. 13).

So, are we becoming a Martha church, very busy doing all sorts of good things but losing our first love? Even worse, are we justifying all this busyness in the name of "seeking first the kingdom"? I said earlier that the Mary/Martha story brought me to self-examination. My call in this short little piece of reflection is that we all do the same. Herman Bavinck, reflecting on the furious neo-Calvinist activism of his own day wondered about "losing ourselves in the world. Nowadays we are out to convert the whole world, to conquer all areas of life for Christ. But we often neglect . . . [the fundamental question] . . . do we belong to Christ in life and in death. For this is indeed what life boils down to. What does it profit a man if he gain the whole world, even for Christian principles, if he loses his own soul." (The Certainty of Faith [Paideia, 1980], 94). Indeed!

Third Wave Pentecostalism in the CRC

Third Wave Pentecostalism: CRC Synodical Study Report
Below an overture sent to Classis Muskegon by the First CRC of Muskegon, Michigan. Rev. Michael Borgert is the minister. The overture was rejected. It is printed here with permission.

Overture to Classis Muskegon on Third Wave Pentecostalism
March 1, 2007

I. Introduction

In response to an overture from the Council of Plymouth Heights CRC of Grand Rapids, Michigan Synod 2004 appointed a study committee whose stated task was, “To examine the biblical teaching, Reformed confessions, theological implications, and pastoral dimensions related to ‘third wave’ Pentecostalism (spiritual warfare, deliverance ministries, and so forth), with a view to providing advice to the churches.”1 The study committee was due to report to Synod 2006, but due to the untimely death of Dr. David Engelhard, the former General Secretary of the Christian Reformed Church and chair of the Committee to Study Third Wave Pentecostalism, the report was not available in time for Synod 2006. Because of significant disagreements over the content of the report, the members of the study committee after several meetings amicably separated into two groups representing a majority and minority, both of which have produced their own report and submitted these reports to Synod 2007. These study committee reports have been distributed to the churches for their review in preparation for Synod 2007. The Synod of the Christian Reformed Church approved an earlier related report in 1973 evaluating the neo-Pentecostal or charismatic movement of the 1960’s and 70’s (see Acts of Synod 1973, Report 34).

II. Background

While we appreciate and respect the effort and care that are evident in the Majority Report on Third Wave Pentecostalism that has been submitted to the churches for their review, the Council of First CRC, Muskegon must register numerous concerns it has regarding the content and potential implications of the report.

First, there is in the majority report very little evidence of interaction with and evaluation of appropriate biblical texts bearing directly on the issue(s) at hand (Romans 12, I Cor. 12, Eph. 4, I Peter 4 – which list numerous spiritual gifts/charismata; and various passages in Acts and the Gospels where miraculous healings, being filled with the Holy Spirit subsequent to one’s baptism, casting out of evil spirits/demons by Jesus and his apostles are recorded).

Second, the majority report evidences even less interaction with the Reformed Confessions with only one reference at the end of the report to the Canons of Dort, Art. 12 of the Third and Fourth Main Points of Doctrine. If for no other reasons than these two, the majority report should be rejected. The stated purpose of the study committee was, “To examine the biblical teaching, Reformed confessions, theological implications, and pastoral dimensions related to ‘third wave’ Pentecostalism (spiritual warfare, deliverance ministries, and so forth), with a view to providing advice to the churches.” The majority report is clearly deficient with respect to its assigned purpose and has failed to fulfill its appointed task. There are numerous helpful and thoughtful writers in the Reformed tradition on the topic of Christian spirituality including but not limited to John Calvin, John Owen, Jonathan Edwards, Abraham Kuyper; and closer to our own time, John Stott, J.I. Packer, Philip Yancey and Eugene Peterson.

Third, the majority report appears to be almost entirely descriptive rather than prescriptive. There is so little interaction with and evaluation of the Third Wave movement in the light of Scripture and the Reformed Confessions with respect to the practices and theological assumptions under discussion, the majority report seems to simply acquiesce to what is already happening in some quarters of the church rather than offer a helpful critique of it.

Fourth, the majority report fails to engage the questionable assumptions of the Third Wave movement. Prominent among those assumptions is that the “signs and wonders” associated with the Third Wave movement are visible marks of the true church. The Reformed tradition has since the time of Calvin affirmed that the preaching of the Word, the administration of the Sacraments and the exercise of church discipline were the marks by which the true church could be identified and separated from a corrupt impostor. The assumption that the Holy Spirit allowed these supposedly indispensable gifts to lie dormant and remain largely unused in the experience of the church for hundreds of years except for isolated incidents and occasional outpourings of extraordinary power strains the limits of credulity.

The books of Acts, which records approximately 30 years of the early church’s history from the Ascension of Jesus Christ into Heaven to the time of Paul’s arrival in Rome does record numerous miraculous events (healings, exorcisms, glossolalia, etc.). But even here in the experience of the apostles themselves these miraculous events were recognized as significant enough that Luke saw fit to record them. We are left to assume that these were not everyday occurrences. In contrast, the Third Wave movement does assume that such miraculous events will be commonplace in the experience of the church and in the lives of individual Christians that are filled by the Holy Spirit. This is at best a troubling assumption, and at worst a opening for a neo-Gnosticism to enter into the life of the church creating division, in direct contrast to Scripture’s stated purpose for the giving of these gifts which was to unite the church.

The majority report allows many other underlying assumptions of the Third Wave movement to go unchallenged and in addition makes many of its own assumptions that are equally questionable and seem to be the result of misguided emotion and incoherent thinking rather than sustained, prayerful theological reflection. At one point, the report states, “The astonishing rise of cults, Eastern religions, paganism, Wicca, Kabbala, and others in the last couple of decades attests to a longing to experience the spiritual world. Strikingly, however, while interest in spirituality is on the rise, Christianity as an organized religion is in decline, likely because many denominations practice a functional deism that leaves spiritual seekers to turn elsewhere for an encounter with the divine.”

There are numerous problems with this quotation. First, it is factually inaccurate. Even a superficial examination of church membership statistics will demonstrate that far from declining, the evangelical church is the United States posts modest gains each year and has for the last couple of years also done so in Canada following many years of decline. Second, the charge of deism, functional or otherwise, against a fellow Christian is a serious accusation, one that the report does not substantiate. Third, to assume that the practices advocated by the Third Wave movement are a Christian solution to the “longing to experience the spiritual world” or the “interest in spirituality” is disconcerting. This assumption is even more worrisome when in the minority report one reads of numerous Christian leaders from churches in the developing world who say that many of the practices of the Third Wave and other Pentecostal/charismatic movements have more in common with pagan/animistic rituals that they do with anything that could recognizably be called Christian. We should present those who long for spiritual experiences and who express interest in spirituality with a robust Reformed theology and practice of Christian spirituality rather than to baptize questionable practices with a veneer of Christianity and recommend them to spiritually hungry people as a viable alternative to their yearning.

III. Overture
Because of these concerns, First CRC of Muskegon overtures Classis Muskegon to:

1. Overture Synod 2007 to reject the Majority Report of the Committee to Study Third Wave Pentecostalism.
Grounds:

• The majority report is seriously deficient because of its lack of vigorous interaction with Scriptural and the Reformed Confessions.
• The majority report does not adequately examine the theological implications and the pastoral dimensions of Third Wave movement practices nor does it suggest helpful advice to the churches.
• The majority report opens the door to assumptions that are theologically suspect and to practices that are not edifying to the churches and have the potential to undermine a Reformed hermeneutic of Scripture and Reformed ecclesiology.
• The majority report fails in its stated objective, “To examine the biblical teaching, Reformed confessions, theological implications, and pastoral dimensions related to ‘third wave’ Pentecostalism (spiritual warfare, deliverance ministries, and so forth), with a view to providing advice to the churches.”

2. Overture Synod 2007 to accept the Minority Report of the Committee to Study Third Wave Pentecostalism.
Grounds:

• The minority report identifies and critiques a number of troubling assumptions and practices of the Third Wave movement.
  
• The minority clearly engages in an exhaustive study of relevant biblical passages with respect to the stated purpose of the study committee making it clearly superior to the majority report.
  
• The minority report is well-grounded in the Reformed Confessions and theology.
• The minority report’s recommendations to reject certain aspects are clearly in keeping with the cautions and warnings of the earlier Report 34 of 1973 dealing with neo-Pentecostalism.
  

3. Overture Synod to further instruct the authors of the minority report to, in addition to their wise critique of certain beliefs and practices of the Third Wave movement, present a positive statement of Reformed Christian spirituality.

Grounds:

• There is a genuine yearning for spirituality in the world more generally and in our churches.
• This yearning can be positively understood as a manifestation of the sensus divinitatus and should be acknowledged as such and properly directed toward the true end of Christian spirituality – union with Christ.
  
• To put forth such a positive statement of Reformed Christian spirituality presents a viable alternative to the spiritual yearning individuals express and feel, but does so in a way that is in agreement with and under the authority of Scripture and the Reformed Confessions.
  
• Such a statement of Reformed Christian spirituality will serve to strengthen rather than undermine foundational Biblical, theological, and ecclesiastical elements of the Christian Reformed Church’s identity.