# Rev. Hyde's NAPARC Address



## Nate (Mar 26, 2013)

Pastor Daniel Hyde's address to NAPARC this past November has generated a bit of discussion among some of my acquaintances. Some of the discussion has focused on the following quote from his speech: 



> We need the Spirit to move us to reformation. As God revives, the church reforms. The evidence of this is found in our confessional documents. When you learn of the history behind the men and the movements that led to these documents, you see the hand of the Holy Spirit leading them to respond to the Spirit’s reviving work in the church in confession of the truth. Until we are revived, we will not have a new reformation. Until we are revived, we will continue to bicker, blog, and tweet carnally over creation days, the historicity of Adam, the relationship between justification and sanctification, law and gospel, how the two kingdoms relate to each other, the church’s witness and work in a dying culture, and a whole host of struggles we are having right now.



(for context, the entire text of the speech is here:From Reformed Dream to Reformed Reality: The Problem and Possibility of Reformed Church Unity)

To many of my acquaintances, this quote demonstrates that Pastor Hyde is willing to jettison any firm confessional stance on creation days, the historicity of Adam, the relationship between justification and sanctification, etc. in order to reach broader unity between Reformed denominations. They believe that he is essentially labeling these issues as denominational "distinctives" that should not hinder the pursuit of unity. I come to the exact opposite conclusion when I read this quote: to me, Rev. Hyde seems to be saying that we must truly reform and come back to an orthodox understanding of these issues based on the confessions. Then, once we become true to the confessions on these issues, real unity will be possible. 

Does anyone know which interpretation is closer to the intent of Pastor Hyde? Perhaps some of you were at NAPARC 2012 and had discussions regarding this speech?


----------



## mvdm (Mar 26, 2013)

NateLanning said:


> when I read this quote: to me, Rev. Hyde seems to be saying that we must truly reform and come back to an orthodox understanding of these issues based on the confessions. Then, once we become true to the confessions on these issues, real unity will be possible.



Nate, based on my understanding, I would say you are on target and your friends are misreading him. Hyde's lament is over the "carnal manner" of arguing about these matters (bickering via tweeting, blogging, etc), not that these matters are unimportant.


----------



## Nate (Mar 26, 2013)

Thanks Mark. Were you at this meeting? Do you know how this speech was generally received?


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 26, 2013)

Wow, I can't believe how this is being misrepresented. I just talked to Rev. Hyde face to face last week and the things you are reporting are so wacked out and incorrect that I fear for whomever made such statements. We do have a judge in heaven. That is precisely the point in my estimation. Danny is not prone to jettison anything you mention. This is just evil back biting.


----------



## mvdm (Mar 26, 2013)

NateLanning said:


> Thanks Mark. Were you at this meeting? Do you know how this speech was generally received?



Nate, I was not able to make the meeting, but did review the transcript of his address and have communicated with Rev. Hyde about it. From folks I've spoken to who attended the meeting, I gather it was generally well-received.


----------



## Marrow Man (Mar 26, 2013)

Nate, I was at the meeting and it was generally well-received.

I will admit that I was taken aback at the time by the specific doctrines that are mentioned (they are, obviously, not unimportant; and in part that was because defending the historicity of Adam is something that has taken up some of my time over the last couple of years), but there are a couple of things that (I think) need to be considered:

1) The message was on the topic of unity in the church. Here, I think Mark is spot on: bickering on blogs instead of going straight to the source is what Danny was most likely getting at. Why not have him or your friends ask him directly what he meant? He's a member of the PB; hopefully he will respond to this thread and if not, you or someone else can PM him. He's very approachable.

2) From what I gathered, part of the context here involves a proposed unification between the URC and CanRC at some point in the future. Some of the thrust of the talk, in part, was intended to help clear barriers that would prevent unity between the two denominations. I may be a bit off-base here, but that was taken from my listening to folks discuss some issues with him after the talk. Someone who is more "in the loop" here can correct me or be more specific.


----------



## mvdm (Mar 26, 2013)

Marrow Man said:


> From what I gathered, part of the context here involves a proposed unification between the URC and CanRC at some point in the future. Some of the thrust of the talk, in part, was intended to help clear barriers that would prevent unity between the two denominations.



I would surmise such context was within the intended ambit of his address. He is an astute observer, and surely he was aware of the unhelpful scaremongering that erupted on the internet when the CanRef./URC merger discussions were warming up some years ago. At the same time, his Naparc address certainly had a much broader scope in mind.


----------



## Nate (Mar 26, 2013)

Thanks Pastor Phillips,
Pastor Hyde was kind enough to exchange a few emails with me regarding some of the remarks in his speech, but I'm afraid my questions were pretty extensive and we did not get around to this aspect of the speech. For anyone interested, my friends and I have been discussing the attached PDF which contains a critique of Pastor Hyde's speech.


----------



## MW (Mar 26, 2013)

NateLanning said:


> Thanks Pastor Phillips,
> Pastor Hyde was kind enough to exchange a few emails with me regarding some of the remarks in his speech, but I'm afraid my questions were pretty extensive and we did not get around to this aspect of the speech. For anyone interested, my friends and I have been discussing the attached PDF which contains a critique of Pastor Hyde's speech.



I do not see from the quotation in the OP nor the linked article how it can be said that Rev. Hyde "is willing to jettison any firm confessional stance on creation days, the historicity of Adam, the relationship between justification and sanctification, etc. in order to reach broader unity between Reformed denominations." He is clearly concerned with the need for a renewing work of the Holy Spirit in the church so that we can discuss these things in a spiritually mature manner. I have respect for the Protestant Reformed as a confessionally conservative and active reformed church, but it seems to me that the article is simply throwing water on the conviction that we need revival.


----------



## mvdm (Mar 26, 2013)

armourbearer said:


> I have respect for the Protestant Reformed as a confessionally conservative and active reformed church, but it seems to me that the article is simply throwing water on the conviction that we need revival.



Agreed. The P.R. minister apparently missed Hyde's point re: revival/reformation and spiritual maturity, and in the process displayed a lack of spiritual discernment and maturity himself.


----------



## PuritanCovenanter (Mar 27, 2013)

Marrow Man said:


> Why not have him or your friends ask him directly what he meant? He's a member of the PB; hopefully he will respond to this thread and if not, you or someone else can PM him. He's very approachable.



Danny doesn't participate on the PB any longer. I am sure you can email him at Oceanside URC. Oceanside URC » A Christian & Reformed Church in North San Diego County


----------

