The Formula of Agreement Has to Go

For over ten years now the RCA, through the historic and misguided Formula of Agreement, has been in "full communion" with the ELCA, the PC(USA), and the UCC.  There have been enough unbiblical goings-on in any of these denominations to sound the alarm, but the recent action by the ELCA is the latest and possibly the most egregious.  Meeting last week in Minneapolis, the Lutherans voted to allow non-celibate homosexual clergy and the blessing of same-sex relationships in the church.  The RCA, through the Formula of Agreement, is in "full communion" with the ELCA.  Should we be?

According to the Agreement, the term "full communion" is understood to specifically mean that the four churches, among other things, "recognize each other as churches in which the gospel is rightly preached and the sacraments rightly administered according to the Word of God."  No doubt, some of you reading this blog think homosexuality is good, or permissible, or something less than sinful.  But most of us in the RCA think same-sex behavior, along with plenty of other sins, is prohibited in the Bible.  Where does this leave us in relationship to the ELCA (and the other two denominations for that matter)? 

What do we do when a denomination perverts the grace of our God into sensuality (Jude 4)--and not just a few renegade churches here and there, but the whole denomination in its official decision making capacity?  Is the gospel rightly preached in the ELCA when their "gospel" officially affirms sinful behavior that the Bible says will keep one out of the kingdom of heaven (1 Cor. 6:9-10)?  For those of us who hold to the Church's millennia long teaching on sexuality, how can we continue to recognize as a true church a body that does not "engage in the pure preaching of the gospel", does not "subject itself to the yoke of Christ" and allows into the offices of the church those who are not "fleeing from sin and pursuing righteousness" (Belgic Confession Article 29)?  Homosexuality is, as J.I. Packer has argued, a heretical issue because it denies a central tenet of the gospel--repentance. 

The RCA broke ties with the white church in South Africa over apartheid.  It's time the RCA profers a similar forumla of disagreement and breaks from full communion with erring, not to mention dying, denomations like the ELCA.  The gospel is once again at stake.

Happy Birthday John (three days late)

Whatever lasting impact John Calvin has had on the church of Jesus Christ, and on the whole world for that matter, is owing to his commitment to understanding and explaining the word of God. From sermons to lectures to letters to tracts to treatises to confessions to catechisms to books, his adult life was consumed with one thing: the word of God–the word as a summons to obedience, the word as a blueprint for reform, the word as the foundation for all truth.

Calvin’s confidence was not in the world of technology and progress. He would have scoffed at Bultmann’s now laughable line from several generations ago that “it is impossible to use electric light and the wireless [radio] and to avail ourselves of modern medical and surgical discoveries, and at the same time believe in the New Testament world of demons and spirits.”

Calvin’s confidence was not in man’s potential or the triumph of the human spirit. He would have equally scoffed and been frankly embarrassed by the well-known Reformed Church pastor, Robert Schuller who argued that self-esteem was the New Reformation and that “Christians should hold to these truths: I affirm that I will never be defeated, because I will never quit...I affirm that if I’m totally dedicated I’ll eventually win.”

Calvin’s confidence was in the Word of God, and that’s why his theology and vision of the world continues to capture the minds and hearts of people in the 21st century. That’s why five hundred years later we remember his birth. That’s why Calvin the preacher and expositor has millions more spiritual children than Erasmus the scholar and hermeneutical skeptic. Strive for relevance in your day, and you’ll may make a difference for a few years. Anchor yourself in what is eternal and you may influence the world for another five centuries.

I’m all for young people dreaming big dreams. Go out and change the world. Make a difference. Discover a cure for cancer. Write a best-selling novel. Become president. But remember, your “glory” (and mine) will not last. Your great accomplishments will fall away–either in your lifetime, or in a generation, or at the end of all things.

No one will care about your GPA and SAT scores in ten years. If you win a state championship, you’ll be forgotten the next year you don’t. Your beauty will get wrinkles and trim figure plump. Write a great book and it will gather dust in a library some day. Have a big famous church, it won’t last forever. Be an important person in your field, you still be unknown to over 6 billion people in the world. Build an amazing house, it will crumble some day, if it doesn’t go into foreclosure first. All of our achievements and successes are destined to be like dead grass and faded flowers.

But...the word of our God stands forever. The word about Babylon in Isaiah 40 stood firm. and so will his word in our generation. All God’s declarations about himself and his people are true. All his promises will come to pass. Our only confidence is in the word of God. John Calvin was a man, an imperfect, sinful man, but a man that God used enormously because he put his confidence in the word of God.

We do the memory of Calvin no disservice to admit that he had weaknesses. He was physically frail and could be emotionally volatile. No one lamented his own weaknesses–physical and spiritual–more than himself. And no one understand general human weakness better than Calvin. The universe of Calvin’s thought was one where man was small and God was very big. He had no problem being thought of as dust, or a worm, or grass, because he knew that’s what he was compared to the infinite glory, splendor, and holiness of a sovereign God. In a culture like ours where everyone has their thing, their schtick, it’s worth remembering that Calvin’s thing was always the word of God and the glorious God he met there.

God’s promises are sure and his declarations are always right. Opinion polls will come and go. Focus groups can say what they want. Pundits will wax eloquent on everything under the sun. God’s word will still be true. The word is our compass pointing us in the right direction. It’s the North Star, fixed and firm. We may wander and waver, but the word will remain. It’s like a stately evergreen in a field of grass and tulips. The grass will get green. The tulips will have their day. But the evergreen alone will survive the winter. It will not be moved. Humans are weak, failing, and temporal. The word is strong, abiding, eternal.

This is one of the great paradoxes of life. We all want significance. We all want affirmation. We all want to leave a legacy. Some seek significance in work, some in performance, others in stuff, a lot of people in family. Yet, we all have a God-given sense that for all our bluster and bravado we are still grass. But we all want to bloom. So we pour our lives into degrees, and professional advancement, into ministry, and business, and houses, and kids. All the while, knowing deep down that life is fleeting and passing us by and we desperately need to take hold of something that is eternal.

This is the paradox of permanence. The only way our lives will ever touch that which is eternal is to admit that our lives are hopelessly temporal. John Oswalt in his commentary on Isaiah remarked, “If I insist I am permanent, then I become nothing; if I admit that God alone is permanent, then he breathes his permanence on me.” You want a legacy? You want to transcend your own meager existence? Let go of your vain supposed success and grab hold of the word of our God. “This is the one I esteem,” says the Lord, “he who is humble and contrite in spirit, and trembles at my word” (Isa. 66:2).

The truly significant people in this world know that God is everything and they’re nothing. Fads and fashions will rise and fall, but the word will keep on accomplishing its purposes. It will outlast us all. So let our reading, memorizing, catechizing, and preaching be saturated with the word. Let our songs, ministries and mission submit to the word. May all of our theological questions, relationship questions, family questions look to the word. May every new doctrine, new movement, new church, and new book be tested against the word. May all our living and dying be undertaken with the firm conviction that God is true though everyone were a liar (Rom. 3:4).

God's word is smarter, clearer, truer, and speaks to people's deepest needs more than you and I ever could. So try thinking a few less original thoughts and people just might find you relevant in 500 years. “A voice say, Cry out. And I said, What shall I cry? All men are like grass, and all their glory is like the flowers of the field. The grass withers and the flowers fall, because the breath of the Lord blows on them. Surely the people are grass. The grass withers and the flowers fall, but the word of our God stands forever” (Isa. 40:6-8).

The African-American Church Experience

Last Sunday night at our church, Eric Washington, Assistant Professor of African-American and African History at Calvin College, spoke to our congregation on "The African-American Church Experience". Eric and his family live in our area and attend our church often on Sunday evenings. They will be moving to Grand Rapids soon, so I asked if he would teach at our church before he left. I learned a lot from him on Sunday night. The lecture is definitely worth listening to.

Eric framed the discussion around the doctrine of providence. Without mitigating at all the discrimination and oppression African-Americans have endured at the hands of whites in this country, Eric nevertheless claimed that the story of the African-American church is the story of God’s providence. To that end, he began his talk with a quotation from Absalom Jones, the first African-American priest in the Episcopal Church. Jones, who pastored the African Episcopal Church of St. Thomas in Philadelphia, had this to say during a sermon on January 1, 1808, the day that marked the end of the Trans-Atlantic Slave trade in the United States:

There’s always been a mystery why the impartial Father of the human race should have permitted the transportation of so many millions of our fellow creatures to this country to endure all of the miseries of slavery. Perhaps his design was that a knowledge of the gospel might be acquired by some of their descendants in order that they might become qualified to be messengers of it to the land of their fathers.

Eric probes these themes of providence and suffering in more detail in his talk.

If my notes are correct, Eric’s outline looks like this:

I. Slavery and the Church
II. Independence Movements
III. Civil Rights Movement and Social Justice
IV. Concerns for the African-American church today
V. Signs of Hope in the African-American Church
VI. Lessons to be Learned

At the end of the Q/A, Eric mentioned several books for those who are interested in reading more about African-American Church History or reading good books by contemporary African-American Christians. I've read the last three books and highly recommend them. The first two books look interesting as well.

Albert Raboteau. African-American Religion.

Milton C. Sernett. African-American Religious History: A Documentary Witness.

Thabiti Anyabwile. The Decline of African American Theology: From Biblical Faith to Cultural Captivity.

Thabiti Anyabwile. The Faithful Preacher: Recapturing the Vision of Three Pioneering African-American Pastors.

Anthony Carter. On Being Black and Reformed: A New Perspective on the African-American Christian Experience.

Listen to the whole talk. Eric is a good scholar, a committed evangelical, reformed Christian, and an all around nice guy.

What Else We Confess

So the Belhar Confession passed the General Synod and is on its way to the Classes. It will have a harder time getting approved in 31 Classes than getting a majority at Synod, but I think it probably will make it. If that is the case, though I have my reservations with the Belhar, I will be thankful for the themes of unity, justice, and reconciliation and pray that they are understood and applied correctly.

I also hope that our confession of the Belhar will precipitate a more robust confession of our current Standards. If I’m talking to someone in the RCA who loves the Belhar, but is also passionately committed to the truths of the Belgic, Heidelberg, and Canons, and loves these truths and preaches them joyfully and earnestly, I feel much better than when I’m talking to someone who begrudging accepts out three Standards or barely knows what they say or deep down doesn’t believe much of what they affirm. I’m all for talking about unity, justice, and reconciliation, so long as we still talk about faith, repentance, providence, heaven, hell, the wrath of God, a penal substitutionary atonement, and the cross of Christ. If the RCA confesses Belhar, I hope we will also reaffirm what we may have forgotten from the Belgic, Heidelberg, and Canons.

I hope every RCA church will accept the Scriptures as holy and divine (BC 3), and “believe without a doubt all things contained in them” (BC 5)–every miracle, every demonic possession, every “I am” statement, every prophecy of Isaiah no matter how remarkable they may seem. I hope we will affirm that the teaching of the Scriptures is “perfect and complete in all respects” and no human writing, custom, council, decree, or majority opinion stands equal to the divine writings (BC 7). I hope we will have the guts to say we believe the Scriptures to be without error, and “reject with all our hearts everything that does not agree with this infallible rule” (BC 7).

I hope we will not lose our passion for the message of the gospel, even as we try to better live out the implications of the gospel. I hope the message of Christ’s wrath-sustaining, curse-bearing death for sinners will resound from every RCA pulpit (BC 20, 21). I hope we will trumpet the good news of Jesus Christ and his righteousness imputed to us through faith (BC 22). I hope we will help the hurting and care for the needy and also tell them that “our blessedness lies in the forgiveness of our sins because of Jesus Christ” and that “God grants this righteousness apart from works” (BC 23).

I hope that as we talk about the unity of the church, we will equally affirm that the church is to be “a holy congregation” (BC 27) and for the church to be the church it must engage in the pure preaching of the gospel, the pure administration of the sacraments, and practice church discipline (BC 29). I hope we will continue to believe that “our children ought to be baptized and sealed with the sign of the covenant” (BC 34), and that we will practice what we profess to believe in this matter and in every other area of possible doctrinal slippage.

I hope that every ordained minister and professor of theology, and anyone who has taken a vow to uphold the Standards, will not only rejoice in the "gracious reward the Lord" will give the faithful and elect, a glory such as the heart of men could never imagine, but will also confess that the wicked and unbelieving “shall be made immortal–but only to be tormented in the everlasting fire prepared for the devil and his angels”(BC 37).

I hope every RCA preacher will teach the absolute necessity of being born again (HC 8). I hope that the glorious logic of propitiation and penal substitution laid out in HC 12-19 will be understood, affirmed, gladly proclaimed, and sung at full voice in our churches and at General Synod. I hope we will find comfort in the truth that God does not merely allow hard things to come into our lives, but that all things–good and bad–come to us from his good, fatherly hand (HC 27).

I hope we will declare, winsomely and boldly, to a dying world that only through faith in Christ and subsequent union with him can anyone be saved (HC 20). I hope all the pastors in the RCA will teach their congregations to believe in the virgin birth (HC 35), justification by faith along (HC 60, 61), and the reality of eternal life and eternal condemnation (HC 84). I hope we will affirm that not everyone who says “Lord, Lord” will enter the kingdom of heaven, but we will confess that “Those who, though called Christians, profess unchristian teachings or live unchristian lives, and after repeated and loving counsel refuse to abandon their errors and wickedness, and after being reported to the church, that is, to its officers, fail to respond also to their admonition–such persons the officers exclude from the Christian fellowship by withholding the sacraments from them, and God himself excludes from the kingdom of Christ” (HC 85). I hope every elder board, Classis, and regional synod really believes this and will practice what we confess to believe. I hope we will remember that Christ has commanded us to call God “our Father” and not “our Mother” (HC 120).

I hope we will not be embarrassed by the Canon’s teaching on election and reprobation, but we will see, as Paul did, the glory of God revealed in his sovereign, free choice. I hope we will not be ashamed of limited atonement and total depravity. I hope we will encourage our people with the good news of the preservation of the saints and preach the gospel to all nations, believing that God’s irresistible grace will be effectual in the elect. This is but a small sampling of the doctrinal, devotional, scriptural riches in our Standards. I hope from the bottom of my heart that everyone who has vowed their assent to the Standards embraces these truths and gladly declares them to others.

Our confessional heritage is as good any out there. Perhaps the practical outworkings of Belhar will make a great thing even better. I don’t know what will happen. Only time will tell. But I do know this: Belhar isn’t worth confessing if we don’t really confess the Standards we already have.

Death By Dialogue

The RCA has consistently affirmed that homosexual behavior is sinful. In 1978 the General Synod approved a paper entitled “Homosexuality: A Biblical and Theological Appraisal.” The paper was not perfect, but it did make statements like “Paul’s rejection of homosexual activity is beyond question” and “we cannot affirm homosexual behavior.”

In 1990 the General Synod adopted R-11: “To adopt as the position of the Reformed Church in America that the practicing homosexual lifestyle in contrary to scripture, while at the same time encouraging love and sensitivity towards such persons as fellow human beings.”

In 1995 the General Synod approved that a faithful summary of the RCA position on homosexuality includes, among other statements, that “Homosexual behavior is not God’s intended expression of sexuality.”

In 2004 the General Synod adopted R-92: “To affirm that marriage is properly defined as the union of one man and one woman, to the exclusion of all others.”

And in 2005, in an unprecedented trial before the whole General Synod, three charges were heard against a Minister/Professor of Theology who had performed a “wedding” ceremony for his lesbian daughter. The charges were upheld by a 2-1 margin and Synod voted to depose Rev. Dr. Kansfield as a Professor of Theology and suspend him as a Minister of Word and Sacrament.

But the issue of homosexuality in the RCA has not gone away. Following the 2005 General Synod, the denomination entered into a three year process of dialogue. In 2006 there was confusion and some consternation about who would provide supervision and pastoral care for Rev. Dr. Kansfield. In 2007 controversy erupted again when the woman chosen to preach three times at Synod was found to be an outspoken advocate of gay marriage. This June, the General Synod will gather for its annual meeting and get a report from the dialogue coordinator and steering committee.

The Conversation to Nowhere

In one sense the dialogue report doesn’t do much, at least not on an official level. But the longer we dialogue around an issue, the more legitimacy is given to both sides of the issue. The report bears this out. The report reads, in part:

The dialogue also worked in the sense that it revealed the great complexity of RCA members’ views on homosexuality. Widely scattered views emerged as the steering committee and coordinator listened to the ways in which RCA members talked about homosexuality and about their lives in the church. These many views were treated as “voices” within the RCA that are speaking, as it were, around a table, concerning homosexuality and church life.

Additionally, the dialogue succeeded in the sense that it equipped participants to engage each other more sensitively and charitably on future issues that may threaten to be divisive. A dialogue experience yields a set of skills that the church can use, perhaps primarily at the local-church level, whenever an emotionally loaded issue must be addressed.

In the matter of homosexuality, no consensus emerged among RCA members as a result of the dialogue program. Therefore no policy recommendations to the General Synod appear in this report. The church’s ability to handle its deliberations regarding homosexuality has improved, at least among those who participated in the dialogue’s events. This ability was among the purposes which the General Synod Council (GSC) specified when it authorized the program in 2005.

Notice how dialogue has served to undermine the frequently states position of the RCA. Several times over several years, the RCA has affirmed that marriage is between a man and a woman. True, there is a sizeable minority that disagrees with this stance. But now through dialogue the majority opinion has been marginalized as just another voice at the table. The point of dialogue in mainline denominations is never to decide anything, but rather to share stories and “perspectives”. The process of dialogue predetermines its outcome. There will be no resolution, except the resolution not to resolve anything. The “can’t we all just get along” crowd always wins in this kind of dialogue.

Thus: “The dialogue coordinator and steering committee recommend that the General Synod postpone further policy deliberations regarding homosexuality and that the materials developed in this program be made available in appropriate form for future use by the church.” Several overtures to Synod this year urge a similar approach: to refrain from any legislative and policy decisions and instead to engage in further dialogue. Dialogue, the reports argues, “does not yield policy decisions—except in the instance in which a consensus emerges from the dialogue process.” And as you might imagine, “In the matter of homosexuality, no consensus emerged in the RCA as it engaged in the dialogue program.”

Here’s how it usually happens in mainline denominations: a biblical position regarding homosexuality is on the books, it gets reaffirmed several times even as opposition to it grows, the opposition party is not the majority but they are loud so everyone decides to talk things over for a few years, it is discovered (surprise!) that people don’t agree on the issue, then more dialogue, then those opposed to the official denominational position ask for tolerance or for everyone to “trust the system” of checks and balances, the “system” at the local level refuses to uphold the denominational position, more pleas for everyone to get along and not let this “secondary” issue divide us, more deviation from the official position, further dialogue, official tolerance for the unofficial position, conservatives are labeled as divisive, judgmental troublemakers, a call for denomination wide healing is made, followed by urgent pleas to move on to more important matters, and finally people move on feeling glad this “difficult chapter in our life together” is over, the official position–whether officially or unofficially–is no more.

Three’s a Crowd

What everyone needs to see is that there are three positions on homosexuality any given denomination can take: 1) Homosexual behavior is sinful. 2) Homosexual behavior is to be celebrated. 3) We can allow for both positions. Denominations never get to 2 except by going first to 3. If people in the RCA had to vote between 1 and 2, I'm convinced two-thirds would vote for 1. But what happens is that position 3 gets advertised as they sane, wise, loving, above-the-fray position perfectly positioned between two extremes. Conservatives lose their resolve, get tired of fighting, and get cow-towed into thinking “Maybe this doesn’t really matter. Maybe we should just get on with church planting. Why not keep talking about this for another three years?”

Postponing hard decisions always feels good, but it not always best. My hope and prayer is that the RCA will reject any recommendations for more dialogue and quickly (perhaps voting on something definitive at the next General Synod) give constitutional permanence and weight to the previous actions of Synod.

At the very least, I hope the RCA will stop hesitating among three opinions. If the denomination is to ever move on from this issue, a firm decision needs to be made. I say, make it soon and make it clear. Then give everyone grace to decide if the RCA still feels like home.