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
2 comments:
Following are some comments relative to the FOS "replacement." It is certainly much more than a revision. I've simply gone through it paragraph by paragraph to point out the clear meaning of the words and what it requires of office bearers. If this is not what the committee meant to say by the covenant, then it should be revised to more clearly state the committee's intent.
Paragraph 1: We, the undersigned office bearers of the CRCNA heartily accept the
authority of the Word of God as received in the inspired Scriptures of the Old
and New Testaments, which reveal the gospel of grace in Jesus Christ,
namely the reconciliation of all things in him.
Generally, this first paragraph is redundant, since all members have committed to this already . By becoming a member of a church in our denomination, the member subscribes to our bylaws, which include this. Bylaws: Section 2. Basis. The basis of this Church is the Holy Bible which we believe, confess, and declare to be the inspired and infallible Word of God, and our only rule for faith and practice.
Bylaws: Section 3. Forms of Unity. This Church, as an ecclesiastical organization and legal corporation, accepts, believes, and is bound by the Form of Subscription to the following named Reformed Creed as a true interpretation of the Holy Bible:
The Belgic Confession
The Heidelberg Catechism
The Canons of Dort
Next, whether in a covenant or a form of subscription, gratuitous language should be avoided, because it obfuscates the meaning of the sentence. . Thus, the word "heartily" should be struck. We are not so interested in how hearty the acceptance is, since emotions change from day to day. If one insists on adding extra verbiage, then perhaps "sincerely" would be better. But in an oath simplicity and clarity are best. I would also replace "namely" with "specifically." It also strikes me that the word "received" is not the proper verb form to use in describing how the gospel is revealed. An active verb would fit better, perhaps the word "declared" or "spoken."
Paragraph 2
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.
Shrinking this to its basic sentence structure, it says: "We accept the confessions as expressions of understanding which define our tradition and guide us today." What is an "expression of understanding?" It is unclear. This paragraph is nothing except an explanation of what the confessions are to be seen as. There is no commitment to them. It suggests a clear commitment to the confessions, ending the first phrase with a colon, as if to say, the following are the confessions that we commit to. But virtually hidden is the little word "as" which completely changes the paragraph.
Instead of "accepting" the confessions, as they are written, the word "as" informs us that the confessions are out of date. We only accept them as "expressions" that say what people thought the Bible meant 400 years ago. The paragraph states that the confessions are just the "tradition" from which our church came. They are nothing more than a "guide" for our church today. In this paragraph, the first five words become gratuitous and misleading, since the remainder of the paragraph contradicts or undoes what the first five words say. In an oath, or covenant, it is important to make completely clear what the reader is "accepting." Better to start the paragraph with what the office bearer is being asked to agree to, if indeed the paragraph means what it says, rather than starting with a misleading statement. It would clarify it somewhat if the words "the historic confessions:" were removed.
The word "its" seems to (grammatically) refer back to "gospel." I think it is the intention of the writer that "its" refers back to the three confessions and "our world..," or does it refer back to the word "church's?" Confusing to the reader, certainly! Clarity suffers when one attempts to write an entire paragraph using just one sentence.
Paragraph 3
We promise with thankfulness for these expressions of faith to be shaped by
them in our various callings: preaching, teaching, writing, and serving. We
further promise to continually review them in the light of our understanding of
the Scriptures.
Meaning: We promise to be "shaped" by the confessions, and continually review them. In this covenant, this is the only promise that the office bearer is asked to make regarding the confessions, and its meaning is obscure. If the confessions are just a guide, as stated in paragraph 2, then isn't it confusing and contradictory that in this paragraph we promise to be "shaped" by them? Doesn't that mean that we will abide by them? Why would we agree to abide by them if they are just "guides." If not "abide" then what does "shaped" mean? In an oath or covenant, clear language is crucial. The word "shaped" is not clear. It is certainly not enforceable. If I say that I am "shaped" by them, but you are not, who is right, who enforces, and what penalty is there? The penalty in the FOS, loss of office, has been removed from this covenant. There is no way to objectively know if one has been "shaped," therefore how does one know what one is promising to do, and how does one go about being "shaped?"
The promise to "continually review" the confessions is asking a lot of say, a Sunday school teacher. It would certainly be a good idea for a pastor to preach about the confessions now and then, or have a teaching series so that the congregation becomes more knowledgeable about them. Yes, everyone should get out their hymnals and read them. They have certainly been neglected. But it seems quite a stretch to ask every volunteer to affirm that they will "continually" review them. I am not sure that most volunteers could in good conscience agree to this. Since there is no penalty for failing to be "shaped" by them, it is unlikely that anyone will studiously review them on a regular basis.
Remove gratuitous language. In this case, "with thankfulness for these expressions" confuses the sentence and asks the oath taker to feel gratitude as part of the affirmation. There is no need to feel a certain way, but only to agree to abide by certain requirements and state that one agrees with them. Such phrases that prescribe feelings may sound nice but really do not belong in an affirmation.
Paragraph 4
Should we at any time become convinced that our understanding of the
gospel as revealed in the Scriptures has become irreconcilable to the witness
of the church as expressed in the above documents, we will communicate our
views to the church according to the prescribed procedures and promise to
submit to its judgment.
We will state our views to our council? There is no enforcement process, indeed, because there is no objective way to know if we have kept our promise as stated in paragraph 3. But we "promise" nevertheless to communicate irreconcilable understandings. Sounds like a recipe for dissent. By "documents," one must assume that this refers to the confessions and "our world..." Perhaps the references should be consistent, in which case, the term "expressions of understanding" or expressions of faith" should be used here as well. It seems that irreconcilable with is better than irreconcilable to....the witness. One problem with this procedure is that there is no apparent right of appeal. In the FOS, one would simply agree not to teach or proclaim any interpretation that differed from the confessions until the appeal is heard. Here, we simply promise to "submit." How is that carried out?
Paragraph 5
We do this so that the church will remain faithful to, grow in understanding of,
and be diligent in living out this witness in all of life to the glory of God.
As written, this is not a part of a promise; it is simply an explanation of why we "do this." .I suppose "do this" refers to paragraph 4, in which we essentially promise to continually question whether the confessions are an accurate statement of our beliefs. Yet it also seems to claim that the promise to be "shaped by the confessions" is all that is needed to accomplish the goals stated in paragraph 5. It is unclear what is referred to by the word "witness." That term is only used in paragraph 4 to refer to the confessions. If the confessions are just guides that "shape" us, then the goal expressed in paragraph 5 is unlikely to meet with success, since the previous paragraphs excuse us from committing to the confessions. But, paragraph 5 suggests that the confessions apply to all of life, and this affirmation is the mechanism by which the church is held faithful to them. In fact, this "revision" excuses us from believing, defending, and teaching the confessions. So the first four paragraphs can not be expected to produce what paragraph 5 asks.
Paragraphs 1-4 gut the FOS, so perhaps paragraph 5, like the first 5 words of paragraph 2, is designed to make us "feel" that we have not done so. But paragraphs 1-4 make paragraph 5 a vain hope at best.
It would seem to me that the revision would have the tendency to lead to all kinds of different interpretations among member churches, since it lowers the standards of the confessions to "guides" and "expressions of faith." I would think that this would inevitably lead to schisms in the long run. While I have suggested various revisions to try to clarify some of the language in the "covenant," I would suggest that it would be far better for the committee to work to revise the existing FOS, instead of attempting to create an entirely new "covenant." The FOS is really a very well written and clearly written document, with a very workable appeal process and clear expectations and penalties. If the committee wishes to weaken some of its provisions, do so in clear unambiguous language that can be debated. Weakening some of its provisions is a much different thing than deconfessionalising the church, which the covenant, by its wording, clearly does.
Steve DeKoster
Elder, Calvin CRC
Grand Rapids, Mi
The FOS Committee has posted their final report (Dave Watson, Kent, WA)
http://www.crcna.org/site_uploads/uploads/resources/FormofSubscriptionReport08.pdf
Post a Comment