Going to Church in the CRC
Tuesday, July 28, 2009 at 10:15PM I grew up in the Christian Reformed Church, and I harbour no animosity toward that fine denomination or any of its local churches. That being said, I find it troubling that our General Secretary--the General Secretary of the Reformed Church in America--has chosen to make his home church a CRC church. It creates some dissonance within my mind and spirit. Now I admit that I am not privy to some of the personal reasons the General Secretary may have or some of the explanations given to the GSC for attending the CRC, but I have a hard time finding any plausible reasons or explanations that would be compelling enough. Its like Steve Jobs carrying around a Dell or the head of GM driving a Toyota--its just not done. It would be a betrayal. Perhaps that is what is happening here--a betrayal. I don't know. But it make me uneasy. Am I alone in this feeling?
Blessings,
David Vandervelde
PS - For those who are wondering, I'm getting my information from the most recent edition of the Church Herald (page 22).
PPS - If the General Secretary happens to read this post, I'd like to invite him to offer some public thoughts on his church choice here on these blogs.
Reader Comments (39)
Being what most would consider a "conservative RCA member",
I have been uneasy at best with the priorities and pushes by our General Secretary.
I believe there is adequate theological leadership and talent within the RCA to afford us to have a GS who is fully committed member of the RCA and its congregations. From the reading of the GS on what he actually does, its seems clear that he is in full strategic mode to get the Belhar passed in the local classis units and I am sure some of the CRC leaders will look for him to do the same for them in the near future. Being in disagreement with his priorities, past and present, I now am uncomfortable with is church membership if indeed he is not a member of the RCA.
Conerning the Belhar Confession: I feel that this feel good piece has no place in our Creeds and Confessions. It smacks of the same political correctness that has put our nation in the state that it currently finds itself.
"that God, in a world full of injustice and enmity, is in a special way the God of the destitute, the poor and the wronged"
"world full"....when something is "full" it implies no justice is occurring. That's an unhealthy and inaccurate exaggeration.
"that God supports the downtrodden, protects the stranger, helps orphans and widows and blocks the path of the ungodly"
"that the church as the possession of God must stand where the Lord stands, namely against injustice and with the wronged; that in following Christ the church must witness against all the powerful and privileged who selfishly seek their own interests and thus control and harm others"
Averill: Our leaders and dialogue committee have left the door wide open for interpretation as to who can claim to be downtrodden, strangers, and wronged, which in turn dilutes the Belhar. So as Wes works on implementation now with both denominations, the benefits could be minimal when the confession is vague. I guess the synod delegates can at least celebrate being a part of something historical, but will it be unifying and beneficial? The GS seems to be a special spiritual guru hovering over both denominations. In my mind the GS has been far too political for my comfort and biblical benefit.
David,
As you may know, this topic came up at General Synod and didn't really go anywhere. I will admit I'm of two minds on the question. On one hand, I agree with you - on the surface there seems a question of allegiance. On the other hand, I can fully understand why the General Secretary would opt to attend a non-RCA church. He deals with "RCA Stuff" all week long, surely it would be edifying to be given a bit of a break when it comes time to worship with his family. With that in mind, what better of a place for him to worship than within a denomination that holds to our theology (often better than we do ourselves!) I'm clearly not privy to either his thoughts or any discussions the GSC has on the matter, but what little I know about the General Secretary's background suggests to me that the church he has chosen to worship with is a closer match with some of the important aspects of his history than any of the local RCA churches would be.
John, as for the question of whether or not the General Secretary is a "member" of the RCA, there is little doubt. He is ordained as a minister of Word and Sacrament in the RCA and therefore holds membership in an RCA Classis (I would presume as a "specialized minister" although I haven't actually looked it up).
Grace and Peace,
`tim
I realize the RCA and CRC are similar,not but attending an CRC church because he wants to get a bit of a break from the weekly work or the conversations regarding his work, gives little opportunity for being ministered to by a potential caring RCA church. What if church elders or deacons had that same mentality? Being the leading officer of the RCA but being a member of another denomination suggests to me that he is losing opportunities to volunteer some efforts to his denominations local congregation as well.
Dear Friends,
For FYI, Wes is a member of Classis Cascades. He is scheduled to be here for our fall meeting in November.
Paul
I was a member of the Reformed Church of America but no longer.I attend a Reformed Church but i will not join .Why? Look at yourself and where you have come from and where you are going.You are so far from John Calvin that he wouldn't even recognize your Theology.You are more concerned about social concerns than you are about the word of God.God is Sovereign not man.The Reformed Church needs to be reformed to where it started.
John... Just for the record, I didn't say that our General Secretary necessarily attends a CRC church for that reason, I suggested that it might be a possibility. I don't know.
Curt... I had a fairly lengthy response typed up for you, but I'll delete it. You've made your choice and, by alienating yourself from the church (rather than the other way around), you've given up the right to complain about it.
Grace and peace,
`tim
Correct me if I'm wrong: We have a formula of agreement with the CRC. We have equal exchange of ministers with the CRC.
Why then if we fully except transfer of membership from CRC churches and we fully accept ministers from the CRC and vice versa, should anyone have a problem with the Gen Sec attending our sister church?
Also, since the Belhar has been brought into this discussion: At the heart of the Belhar if the desire to unify the church. In particular the South African church which was divided during apartide, but also It seems to me should also be a consideration for an honest look to reconcile and unit with the CRC.
Leighton... Actually, the CRC is not part of the Formula of Agreement. We have, over the past few years, normalized some of our relationship with the denomination, but they are not part of the FoA. It's with the ELCA, Presbys, and UCC.
Grace and Peace,
`tim
Tim: regarding your comments to Curt:
Curt... I had a fairly lengthy response typed up for you, but I'll delete it. You've made your choice and, by alienating yourself from the church (rather than the other way around), you've given up the right to complain about it.
Tim: I hope your deleted lengthy response was salted with compassion and grace to the person who feels his denomination has left him. It may be narrow one-sided thinking to state the position that he alienated himself from the church. Perhaps church leadership had a hand in that alienation as well.
Leighton: regarding your comments:
"and we fully accept ministers from the CRC and vice versa, why should anyone have a problem with the Gen Sec attending our sister church?
The GS works for and is compensated by the RCA. Maybe the question should be, "why should he have a problem worshiping in the RCA?
John...
Point well taken (and, indeed, the longer version was a bit more "gracious"), however, that argument has a long and - in my opinion - not at all admirable history in our tradition. I've personally heard it from people in Protestant Reformed, Christian Reformed, and Orthodox Presbyterian churches... and it's been hinted at by others in the RCA. It's the argument that says "My way is the only right way; you've all abandoned the true gospel; I'm going to leave you and say that 'you left me'." I don't buy it. The RCA does a variety of things I disagree with... many, actually. By staying in the RCA, I can help influence its future. Sometimes, I find that I was wrong.
There's nothing healthy about refusing to be a member of a local congregation... nor about referring to the denomination you choose to attend in the third person... nor about sitting in judgment on something that you've decided not to be a part of. Every congregation I've been a part of has people in it who try playing this game. I simply don't believe it's a faithful way of dealing with differences.
Grace and Peace,
`tim
Tim:
Its more healthy for Curt to find another church at this point. However, its more often expected that persons who can't accept changes need to leave than those who can't tolerate the status quo and push for unproven new methods to leave.
Just a few examples of what a normal member may see today but not 20 years ago in typical corporate worship in an RCA church.
1) Topical sermons vs expositional sermons
2) Women in consistories and pulpits vs males only
3) High % of contemporary music vs blended or hymns.
4) 52 less sermons per year vs Sunday night corporate worship
5) Absence of creeds /confessions and Old Testament in worship
6) Pastors arriving at new conclusions regarding same gender attraction.
Maybe a typical pastor may feel the ability to influence the RCA's future, but its a common feeling that persons in the pews (or on chairs) can't change many things that have changed around them. Then they are angry and confused, unsure of how to pit what they feel strongly about versus belonging to their church family they love and don't really want to leave.
John,
You're going to have to roll back the clock more than 20 years if you're trying to get rid of all of the things you listed.
1) Topical sermons vs expositional sermons
I'm an expositional preacher... I don't tend to do topical stuff and I'm not a story teller -- therefore, I'm pretty much everything, as a preacher, that is undervalued or devalued by many of my colleagues and the seminary I graduated from almost a decade ago. All of which is to say that, I'm biased for your argument here, but read sermons from throughout the history of the church and topical sermons have been a steady (albeit perhaps not the "regular") part of the preaching diet.
2) Women in consistories and pulpits vs males only
The RCA has been ordaining women to each of the offices for 30 years now and we, by far, are not the first denomination to be doing so. Many traditions have recognized for far longer than we have, the importance of both men and women in church leadership.
3) High % of contemporary music vs blended or hymns.
I minister within a congregation that is, by all definitions, a "hymn-based" congregational. Here, too, I am biased in favor of your position, however, there is nothing particularly more holy or more theologically sound to the 4-part style of hymn-writing. It's certainly not biblical, and it certain is the "new kid on the block" when you take the fullness of Christian history into consideration. There are bad "contemporary" songs out there... and there are equally as awful hymns. The one benefit is that many (although certainly not all) of the really bad historical hymns have fallen out of use. The same will undoubtedly happen with the lousy "contemporary" music.
4) 52 less sermons per year vs Sunday night corporate worship
Evening services have been common in some parts of the RCA.. not all. The idea of an evening service has never been part of the identity of many areas of the RCA.
5) Absence of creeds /confessions and Old Testament in worship
I will give you this.... since so few of our congregations actually worship "in accordance" with the liturgy (as they are actually required to by the BCO), our worship has often missed some of the most important aspects that have traditionally been of Reformed worship.
6) Pastors arriving at new conclusions regarding same gender attraction.
Every generation has it's "hot topic." This is merely the one on the front burner today. If church history has taught us anything, it's that just about anything of true importance takes somewhere between 1-3 centuries to settle on. If this is truly important to the life of the church, we can expect that it'll be around for a long time.
All of which simply points out that, although I'm sure you intended all of these to be negative things, really... only #5 is a fundamental issue to our identity and purpose as Reformed churches. Every generation deals with changes... few of them are of fundamental importance and few of them deal with core-issues of either Christian or Reformed identity. This is one of our problems... we try to make everything a make-or-break issue. In the end, most of the things we try to make fundamental are truly tangential.
Grace and peace,
`tim
Tim: One additional point on this topic:
Church members- the volunteers, have blind spots in their positions of disagreement with
various positions in the local church. Often they bolt for the door to find another church that may fit their "needs" I am not advocating for this type of behavior. On the other hand, pastors and staff sometimes ride out the disagreements too long because they may have job security and pension at risk, which in all reality can effect their decisions. ( you are humans too)
Perhaps in a way, having the GS work in the RCA but attend a CRC church can be interpreted as he too not being satisfied with the daily operations of the local RCA, opting to find a church in another denomination that meets his needs, rather than stay and help influence changes as you suggest.
Tim:
I have various thoughts and have reached some personal conclusions on most of the topics I listed. I am not trying to get rid of them rather giving examples of somewhat recent changes that are friction points for members. Folks don't all agree on what are "fundamental" issues. I try to reach conclusions based on how a decision or point of view benefits or hinders the ministry of the local church.
John...
You make an interesting point. You write: I try to reach conclusions based on how a decision or point of view benefits or hinders the ministry of the local church.
I think here's essentially where we disagree... I don't know... what do you think?
I try to reach conclusions based on what our standards of unity say - especially when it comes to discerning what things are "fundamentals" and what aren't. I don't believe the ministry of any local church is well-rounded, diverse, experienced, or informed enough to base such decisions on.
Grace and peace,
`tim
I encourage you and all pastors to inform their flocks on the standards of unity and what really are the fundamentals. So standards of unity may not really be what type of coffee is brewed each Sunday morning? Many pastors and consistories have placed the pastor position as the one who sets the vision. So, like it or not, we need to hear from pastors what those standards are. Perhaps when church leaders and staff take a break from trying to be so cutting edge, the flock can more clearly focus on those standards of unity.
I couldn't agree more.
That's why I teach them regularly, use them regularly in worship, and refuse to either buy into the narcissism and deeply un-reformed practice of making ministers "visionary leaders" of a congregation and have, instead, spent years trying to teach Elders and Deacons about what they are ordained to and what ministers do (and equally as importantly, do NOT) have either the right or the responsibility to do.
Grace and Peace,
`tim
Tim:
Sounds like you are a pastor who takes discipleship of leaders and the flock seriously.
Stay strong in this kingdom work!!
Blessing on your work!
JM
Thanks John and Tim for an interesting exchange. Allow me to get back to Dave's original concern about where Wes Grandberg-Michaelson, RCA General Secretary, worships. None of us are privy to all that goes into personal decisions, but Wes, like me and others who are pastors, is a public figure, open to analysis and assesment.
Our congregation's Office Administrator does not worship with us. Part of her decision is based on the fact that on Sunday morning she doesn't want 25 people trying to talk to her about church business. When I am on vacation, but still in town, I do not attend my own congregation because it is good for me to have no sense of leadership or responsiblity on Sunday morning. After a sabbatical two years ago, I concluded it would be very healthy, but probably very unrealistic, if once a month or every six weeks, a pastor was away to worship with a different congregation.
My guess is that these sorts of reasons play a large part in Wes' decision to worship at a CRC church when in Grand Rapids. There he can be, for an hour or two, relatively anonymous. No one is buttonholing him about this issue or that concern. I also believe there are many, many Sundays Wes when is away from home, traveling, visiting and worshipping with RCA congregations where he is no doubt accosted by people with concerns both profound and trivial. It is difficult to worship as a public figure, where you are being observed and buttonholed. If Wes needs some Sundays when he wants to be anonymous, to be refreshed and free in worship, that sounds like a good idea to me.
Those are interesting thoughts. Wes however is probably gaining exposure already in the CRC with his periodic meetings with their leaders. I think public figures need to cut regular members some slack in the areas of observation, buttonholing and accosting. This might be more anticipated than actual reality. I just think there is more courtesy out there than what you described.
Steve when you say that Wes has a lot of exposure in the RCA and probably wants some anonymity, it makes me wonder if that's a valid reason. I am a minister in the RCA, and that's the only reason I know who Wes is. Before going to seminary (not too long ago), I had no idea who Wes was, and could not point him out in a crowd if I wanted to. Most RCA members are probably the same way. In fact, I would guess that only the elders who have gone to General Synod would be able to point out Wes, everyone else would have no idea who he was or even what his name is.
John - "bolting for the door" because of local church disagreement? Continual declining RCA membership over thirty years indicates many members are quietly slipping out the back door because of division within the whole over the "standards of unity" - primarily over biblical truth. The "fields are ripe for harvest" - why are we not bringing in the sheaves? Are we proclaiming a gospel other than Christ Jesus?
Tim - Synod 2007 a former GS posited to our focus group that we should not be concerned about a few interpretations of Scripture regarding "same gender attraction" and i replied with an eyewitness account of one who had been transformed to opposite gender attraction - "born again" if you please. Tim (and John), i agree with most of what you have written and i appreciate your love and dedication to your flock and the Church. Please vigilant about those "tangential" issues by which a foothold is gained.
Blessings in Christ Jesus, the Author and Perfecter of our Faith!
Shawn, I'm sure Wes would agree that he would like more exposure in the RCA--thus his columns in the Church Herald and on the website. For that same reason, Wes travels a lot. My totally uninformed guess is that he is probably away from home nearly half of the Sundays--worshipping at RCA congregations, perhaps preaching, perhaps leading some sort of forum, expecting to be answer questions, meet-and-greet, etc. Those Sundays he is "on." It is part of his job. But with 800 congregations and 52 weeks a year, visiting congregations on Sundays isn't the complete answer to greater exposure. My point was simply that on the Sundays when Wes is home, those Sundays he is "off" (and I would think for his own physical, mental and spiritual health, we would encourage some "off" Sundays), then it is okay and understandable to me that Wes wants to be anonymous and for a few hours not be the face and voice of the RCA. Worshipping at a CRC congregation might allow for that.