Scott Clark just posted a link to a Banner article about the proposed changes to the Form of Subscription in the Christian Reformed Church (CRC).
We tackled this topic when the Outhouse was a mere hole-in-the-ground back in October of last year. CLICK HERE to read Zrim’s letter that he sent to the committee on the proposed revision of the FoS.
I followed up his post with some background information HERE.
The vacant pulpit at Zrim’s church (Calvin CRC) has Raymond Blacketer as one of the final candidates to fill it. Rev. Blacketer was quoted in the Banner article:
Rev. Raymond Blacketer of Neerlandia (Alta.) CRC offers even sharper criticism. “The adoption of such a watered-down and toothless form,” he argues, “would mean the end of the CRC as a confessional church.”
He’s right of course. But do enough pastors and elders in the CRC care about the denomination remaining confessional?
And now, Bob Godfrey on the Form of Subscription in the CRC. Dr. Robert Godfrey gave a lecture on John Calvin here in Grand Rapids back in October of last year. CLICK HERE for the Mp3 file. In it (about 35:00 minutes in) he talked about this proposed change. He said:
There is a denomination that is known to many of us that is suggesting that the Form of Subscription in that denomination ought to be changed. And one of the reasons offered for that change is this: That the denomination has come to accept quote, “the growing post-modern sense that one simply cannot in any definitive fashion fully subscribe to the understandings from a cultural time and place not one’s own.” Now, [sighs] I hope you’re shocked to the core of your being by that statement. Because it says really two things; first of all, that we should be instructed by post-modernism in it’s most relativistic teaching, that what is said in another time and place really can’t express who we are. So there is a relativistic dimension to this that is troubling. But even more troubling is that although this post-modern sense is being applied today to the confessions how can it possibly, not ultimately be applied to the scriptures? If documents from the 17th century and 16th century can’t express who we are today, how can it possibly be true that documents from two-thousand and three-thousand and more years ago can express who we are and what we believe?
(You may want to start listening at around 32:00 mintues into the lecture for the full context of the above quote. Then again, it’s really worth your while to listen to the whole thing.)
The CRC stopped being a confessional church a long time ago. This is just a formality. Sorry for the cynicism.
By: Echo_ohcE on February 13, 2008
at 3:08 am
I would agree that a good many churches of the CRC stopped being confessional in practice long ago. This move would formally remove the confessional label from them at the denominational level.
By: Rick on February 13, 2008
at 9:40 am
“But do enough pastors and elders in the CRC care about the denomination remaining confessional?”
Given the collective yawn my fellow office bearers gave the invitation by the Synodical committee to respond, my answer should seem obvious. There are about 3 of us in the Blacketer camp and a handful in the swooning camp. I’ll take the swooners any day over the apathetic. Like I told my Council President, I seem to recall something about lukewarmness being roundly spit out…
Blacketer was my last hope as he was on our roster to fill our puplit. Talk about the weirdness of providence, just this morning we were advised that he has been stricken from our list of candidates due to his controversial nature on this and other issues.
By: Zrim on February 13, 2008
at 10:13 am
Thanks for the background info guys, I appreciate it.
By: Mark Vander Pol on February 13, 2008
at 10:52 am
Thanks for pointing everyone to the article, Mark.
By: Rick on February 13, 2008
at 11:07 am
I forgot to add in my other post that you gotta love the way that they use the term “covenant” to sanctify their actions. Oh, it must be okay – they are calling it a covenant…
By: Mark Vander Pol on February 13, 2008
at 3:04 pm
Mark,
Plus, you can’t argue with “moves of the Spirit.”
…oh vey.
By: Zrim on February 13, 2008
at 3:47 pm
Dr. Clark on Monday night said something to this effect, “The CRC said that the Spirit moved them to ordain women. NAPARC then said the Spirit moved them to kick the CRC out!”
By: Mark Vander Pol on February 13, 2008
at 3:49 pm
Yes, that is the victor’s interpretation. Sounds better, more pious, doesn’t it, “The Spirit moved us”? Try good old fashioned bully politics.
By: Zrim on February 13, 2008
at 4:10 pm
You know, Zrim, if you ever wanted to move to San Diego, me thinks you would make a good elder in a confessional church. Just a thought. (And you could get SS classes from Dr. Horts too! AND be within driving distance of WSC! AND wear shorts most of the year!)
By: Mike Brown on February 13, 2008
at 4:11 pm
Mike,
Yeah, being a deacon in an psuedo-confessional church is really wearing on me. And the snow, cold and lack of sun is just brutal on my warm-blooded wife. Of course, we could just move two hours north of here, back home, where a Presby minister friend of mine wishes he had me in his presbytery to help him out. Now if only the KoM would call me to where I could rest in peace.
Like I told Stellman “If I could, you know I would, if I could, I would…dislocate.” I hope someone besides him gets that reference.
By: Zrim on February 13, 2008
at 4:21 pm
Rev. Mike,
Don’t take away our Grand Rapids Confessionalists – Hyde has dangled that carrot too.
Keep fighting here in GR Zrimer! (only fight at an OP or a UR or something) Stay true to the homeland! Do not cast your eyes on the Edenesque plain!
By: Rick on February 13, 2008
at 4:24 pm
Rick,
Don’t worry, mate. I will only go where you go. You know that.
By: Zrim on February 13, 2008
at 4:27 pm
“If I could, you know I would, if I could, I would…dislocate.” I hope someone besides him gets that reference.
Do I get that reference! Live version was the best.
By: Mike Brown on February 13, 2008
at 4:27 pm
We do have confessional Churches here in GR you know, it’s just that a few of them need some work.
By: Rick on February 13, 2008
at 4:28 pm
Mike,
You rule.
Rick,
Good point. Man, why can’t things just be the way I want them? I keep praying and applying all the biblical principles I can think of, but I just cannot transform this city. Dr. Keller, please help! What do you know that I don’t?
By: Zrim on February 13, 2008
at 4:37 pm
I know. But do you have the sun? And the ocean? And SD weather? And…oh never mind. I guess we need to spread out and do the true church and ToC thing. If only transformationalism were true…
By: Mike Brown on February 13, 2008
at 4:39 pm
Drat!
(Jen, cancel the tickets to SoCal. I guess we aren’t going after all. Mike just shoved that ToC thing in my face.)
By: Zrim on February 13, 2008
at 4:47 pm
We have no sun – we all live underground near the earth’s core. We’re all just a bunch of blind albinos groping about.
You just have a bunch of surfer dudes with shaggy blond hair with low IQ’s right? Fires, floods and mudslides every few weeks – smog and congestion so bad that you can’t get anywhere.
It’s pleasant and nice here much of the year. I like it most of the time.
By: Rick on February 13, 2008
at 5:04 pm
Surfer dudes? Yes. But you would be one too if you lived here Rick. Trust me, it is one of the highest forms of enjoyment in all of common grace. But, no, they don’t all have low IQs.
Fires? Yes. That’s is a downside to San Diego.
Floods? Never seen one.
Mudslides? That’s more L.A. And I wouldn’t wish living there upon anyone.
Smog? It’s really not too bad in San Diego. L.A. and Riverside is another story. San Diego is beautiful.
Congestion? Yeah, the traffic is pretty hideous. But that is what CD players, Bono (or Mr. P.D. Hewson as Zrim likes to call him), and the White Horse Inn are for, right?
Honestly, this place is great except for one main thing: property taxes.
By: Mike Brown on February 13, 2008
at 7:13 pm
Oh that’s what happend – it never seemed as though my comments were getting through so I kept rewriting them.
Now I shall pick the best one and proceed.
By: Rick on February 13, 2008
at 7:20 pm
My point was preconceived notions, Brownie – exaggeration to make a point.
I’ve been to SoCal many times and I do enjoy my stays. But I don’t need to live there.
By: Rick on February 13, 2008
at 7:25 pm
Rick,
I hope you know that I meant no harm by all that carrot stuff. I didn’t mean to come across snide. And I am not really trying to recruit Zrim.
By: Mike Brown on February 14, 2008
at 1:06 am
Rev. Brown,
I know – all in good fun. I don’t think you’re snide. I should have put more smiley faces in my comments here.
Some of us confessionalists here in GR are a little envious of the SoCal UR churches. We want what you have there here.
By: Rick on February 14, 2008
at 8:42 am
Of course, now we’re a hole-in-the-ground with a shack built on top!
By: RubeRad on February 14, 2008
at 12:48 pm
I would say that, like smog, San Diego’s is not that bad compared to L.A.
Don’t forget property prices!
By: RubeRad on February 14, 2008
at 12:50 pm
Devil’s Advocate: the only possibility would be that the scriptures are inspired, and the confessions are not.
By: RubeRad on February 14, 2008
at 12:53 pm
Rube,
that thought ran through my head too and I think it’s a valid point. But the inspiration of scripture has fallen on hard times too. When you’re an under-confessionalist you’re usually one of two things: A Biblicist or a Relativist. A Biblicist would never give up inspiration but A Relativist would probably look at scripture the same way he would look at the confessions: as “snapshots of a time and place.” I think that was Godfrey’s point. He doesn’t see the CRC moving toward Biblicism, he sees them becoming increasingly relativistic.
But Godfrey might actually have it reversed. It started with the Bible in the CRC right? They have already placed Paul’s instructions for the Church into the category of “culturally conditioned.”
By: Rick on February 14, 2008
at 1:51 pm
Like some are Evangelicals learning to be Presbyterians, the CRC is confessionalists learning to be Evangelicals.
The Liberal Evangelicals here are taking up the relativist post, while the Fundamentalist Evangelicals within are Biblicists.
There is enough modernity to go around. It is not a question of Liberal/Fundy, it is a question of Evangelical and Confessional. The corresponding corrolaries are relativism and biblicism.
Sheesh, hasn’t anyone read The Lost Soul of American Protestantism yet? I have had it on the blessed syllabus for how long now?
By: Zrim on February 14, 2008
at 2:03 pm
Yeah Yeah Yeah – you keep saying the same things.
But there are sub-categories you know. While Fundies and Liberals may be in different corners of the same house – they are still in different corners.
By: Rick on February 14, 2008
at 2:11 pm
Rick,
You say that like consistency a bad thing.
I guess I am not sure what you are saying with the household analogy. That is what I said. My point is that I don’t think it matters whether they are becoming biblicist or relativist, it matters that these are simply two flavors of a broader category: Evangelical. Let’s not miss the Evangelical forest for the modernist trees.
By: Zrim on February 14, 2008
at 2:21 pm
You’re right that it doesn’t matter what they are becoming (biblicist or relativist) – I was just stating that they are becoming one and not the other in order to address Rube’s comment about inspiration. We can lump them into the evangelical category as opposed to the confessional category, true. But these two groups have major differences in belief.
By: Rick on February 14, 2008
at 2:27 pm
No argument there. My point is only that even in light of their major differences, more binds them together than not and sets them over against confessionalism in a profound way. Here comes some more repetition, but it is sage-like thus deserves to be said over and over, ex-Liberal Thomas Oden: “Fundamentalists and Liberals have more in common than either would be willing to or comfortable admitting.”
–From “After Modernity, What?”
I want to register my point that, speaking as one who runs in CRC circles, you’d be mistaken to think biblicism was overshadowed by relativism. Quite mistaken.
By: Zrim on February 14, 2008
at 2:47 pm
Also, if one wants real Liberalism he won’t mess around in the CRC, he will go straight downtown GR to Fountain Street Baptist Church where they do genuine Liberalism. If he wants real Fundamentalism he will pick a good IFCA Bible church (their offices are in my backyard in Jenison).
The CRC has turned its back on the Confessional tradition but doesn’t do Liberalism or Fundamentalism or Evangelicalism very well either. It is almost like being a lame duck.
By: Zrim on February 15, 2008
at 9:00 am
Rick:
Is there a place we can download that MP3 of Godfrey’s lecture – or am I stuck by my computer to listen?
spl
By: reformedreader on February 15, 2008
at 11:11 pm
Shane,
if you right click on the “CLICK HERE” in the post you should have the option to download the file.
By: Rick on February 18, 2008
at 9:42 am
You can download the final, updated, report of the FOS committee at the site below.
Dave Watson, Kent, WA
http://www.crcna.org/site_uploads/uploads/resources/FormofSubscriptionReport08.pdf
By: Dave Watson on March 11, 2008
at 11:56 am
Thanks, Dave.
By: Rick on March 11, 2008
at 12:14 pm
Yes, thanks, Dave. But this actually looks like the original…
By: Zrim on March 11, 2008
at 12:54 pm
The original disappeared from its original location and the link was dead. So, Dave found it.
By: Rick on March 11, 2008
at 1:04 pm
[...] loose vital touch to the enscripturated text. And to add insult to injury, the recent rumblings to castrate the Forms of Subscription from confessional standards into evangelical guidelines seem to suggest that between loss of touch [...]
By: Why the Conservatives Are of No Help « The Confessional Outhouse on September 15, 2009
at 9:33 am