# Christian Reformed Church



## Greg

I've never heard of this particular denomination before. Anyone familiar with them?

CRCNA


----------



## Kevin

Dutch. 

Reformed.

Canadian.

The only true church.

Any questions?


----------



## calgal

Ask the URC.


----------



## Guido's Brother

Kevin said:


> Dutch.
> 
> Reformed.
> 
> Canadian.
> 
> The only true church.
> 
> Any questions?




Right on number one for sure. Most people in the CRCNA are of Dutch extraction. 

The CRCNA is Reformed insofar as it traces its roots back to the continental Reformation and they still claim allegiance to the Three Forms of Unity. You may find individual CRCs that are still confessionally Reformed and you'll find lots of solid Reformed people still in the CRC. They hold on for the usual reasons. But since the CRCNA moved towards women's ordination in the 1990s, they've lost a lot of people. Hence the comment above about the URCNA.

While there are a lot of Canadian CRCs, I think most of the CRC is in the US. 

As to the last one, well....


----------



## Grymir

"Dutch", "Christian", "Reformed" I never heard of them...

...until my now wife said those words on one of our first "date". I knew then that things had taken a serious turn with her!!!


----------



## JohnV

CRC - Formerly the "sleeping giant" church. So named by Billy Graham because the people of that church stuck to themselves quite a lot. 

My former church. It is still my hope that the CRC will go back to what it was before. But the question would be, 'What was it before?' People from different areas would give different answers to that question. At one time, though, there were a lot of good things about that denomination.


----------



## Seb

JohnV said:


> ...*It is still my hope that the CRC will go back to what it was before.* But the question would be, 'What was it before?' People from different areas would give different answers to that question. At one time, though, there were a lot of good things about that denomination.



Amen brother. There's still quite a few of us in the CRCNA that are still trying to fight the good fight and bring her back on course. Though a lot of times it seems we are teetering on a point of no return.



Kevin said:


> ...The only true church...



If you mean that's the attitude of the denomination, then you're very mistaken. If anything, they are sometimes guilty of being way too ecumenical with Rome and other Protestant denominations that are in a more liberal state than she is.


----------



## Guido's Brother

Seb said:


> Amen brother. There's still quite a few of us in the CRCNA that are still trying to fight the good fight and bring her back on course. Though a lot of times it seems we are teetering on a point of no return.



I noticed a news items just yesterday about another CRC going URCNA, this one in Visalia, CA.


----------



## Seb

Guido's Brother said:


> Seb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amen brother. There's still quite a few of us in the CRCNA that are still trying to fight the good fight and bring her back on course. Though a lot of times it seems we are teetering on a point of no return.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed a news items just yesterday about another CRC going URCNA, this one in Visalia, CA.
Click to expand...


It seems like more and more of the conservative congregations are throwing in the towel. I can't say that I blame them, but it's sad. Every time a conservative congregation leaves the power shifts more to the liberal factions in the CRCNA.

It's really hard to watch this shift continue. With every Synod those who have an agenda contrary to Christ's, are more empowered.


----------



## greenbaggins

The only classis that does not seat women delegates is my own classis, Minnkota. They are still fighting, but are gradually losing their will to fight, I think. When the liberals are in charge, and they aren't listening to the conservatives AT ALL, then it gets difficult to want to stay in.

Reactions: Funny 1


----------



## ericfromcowtown

Would it be fair to compare the CRC to the PCUSA, in that it has become very liberal over the years but that there are still many confessional reformed Christians holding on within its congregations?


----------



## Guido's Brother

Seb said:


> It seems like more and more of the conservative congregations are throwing in the towel. I can't say that I blame them, but it's sad. Every time a conservative congregation leaves the power shifts more to the liberal factions in the CRCNA.
> 
> It's really hard to watch this shift continue. With every Synod those who have an agenda contrary to Christ's, are more empowered.



I can understand the reasons why people stay. But given the bureaucratic polity in the CRCNA, it seems to be a vain hope to think that local congregations can effect meaningful change in the church as a whole. I mean, if you look at the history, it's all about Grand Rapids: CRC Headquarters, Calvin College and Calvin Seminary. Whoever controls those, steers the course of the CRC. The battle was already lost in the 1960s and 1970s.


----------



## Guido's Brother

greenbaggins said:


> The only classis that does not seat women delegates is my own classis, Minnkota. They are still fighting, but are gradually losing their will to fight, I think. When the liberals are in charge, and they aren't listening to the conservatives AT ALL, then it gets difficult to want to stay in.



It's great that there's still one classis holding out, along with any number of local churches. But it must be difficult to hold your position on women's ordination in the local church and at classis, only to go to synod and have not only women delegates seated around you, but also on the executive.


----------



## mvdm

Guido's Brother said:


> Seb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Amen brother. There's still quite a few of us in the CRCNA that are still trying to fight the good fight and bring her back on course. Though a lot of times it seems we are teetering on a point of no return.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed a news items just yesterday about another CRC going URCNA, this one in Visalia, CA.
Click to expand...


Yes, that church {Trinity} is pastored by my brother in law, Rev. Adrian Dieleman. A cause for rejoicing on the one hand that they are now among like minded confessional bretheren. And yet once again. a cause for sorrow that the CRC refused to heed this church's faithful witness these past years.


----------



## greenbaggins

Guido's Brother said:


> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only classis that does not seat women delegates is my own classis, Minnkota. They are still fighting, but are gradually losing their will to fight, I think. When the liberals are in charge, and they aren't listening to the conservatives AT ALL, then it gets difficult to want to stay in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's great that there's still one classis holding out, along with any number of local churches. But it must be difficult to hold your position on women's ordination in the local church and at classis, only to go to synod and have not only women delegates seated around you, but also on the executive.
Click to expand...


Yep. That's our entire problem. Now, we have to go to a synod that we believe is illegitimately constituted. I am pushing rather strongly for non-involvement, since signing a letter of protest (that abysmal dog-bone that the liberals threw to the poor, defeated conservatives) is simply not sufficient. Eventually, we will give up even signing, since signing a protest does nothing, and is not even recorded anywhere important.


----------



## TimV

> Yep. That's our entire problem. Now, we have to go to a synod that we believe is illegitimately constituted. I am pushing rather strongly for non-involvement, since signing a letter of protest (that abysmal dog-bone that the liberals threw to the poor, defeated conservatives) is simply not sufficient. Eventually, we will give up even signing, since signing a protest does nothing, and is not even recorded anywhere important.



Everyone going to a liberal PCA church should memorise this paragraph.


----------



## Heldveld

> Christian Reformed Church- I've never heard of this particular denomination before.



 Being from West Michigan that is just a totally foreign concept.

I grew up CRC went to the RCA (you've probably never heard of them either) and now am in the URCNA. As mentioned there are some good and some bad churches in the denomination. I'm encouraged by those who wish to see changes and pray for the efforts.

There are some 'famous' CRC people L. Berkhof and C. VanTil (raised in and pastored a CRC church).


----------



## Seb

ericfromcowtown said:


> Would it be fair to compare the CRC to the PCUSA, in that it has become very liberal over the years but that there are still many confessional reformed Christians holding on within its congregations?



I don't think that would be a fair comparison at this time. The CRC may degrade to that point but they are not there yet.

Currently in the CRCNA...

...Homosexuality is still a sin [-]and they that practice it are not allowed in Church office.[/-] (edit: I looked at the CRCNA website and I'm not so sure this is true anymore )

...Abortion is still murder.

...and the Bible is still infallible and the final authority in all matters (unfortunately some take liberties in how they understand it and inerrancy has become a point of contention )


----------



## Scott1

> Would it be fair to compare the CRC to the PCUSA, in that it has become very liberal over the years but that there are still many confessional reformed Christians holding on within its congregations?



My impression of the CRC, is that the denomination is in a relatively better (ie more biblical) condition right now.

Based on looking at their literature, and knowing someone who recently went through Calvin College is that this has been a faithful Reformed Church in the not too distant past. Their web site gives the impression of a truly conflicted denomination that has some sound Reformed Theology points mixed in with (contradictory) humanism and modernism. What it holds to is confused as it is in a state of falling away, but still identifies some key biblical, reformed doctrine from the (not-too-distant) past.

The denomination still has many dear Christians in it. There are even some particular churches (and based on Reverend Keister's accounts here, some presbtery's (classis') that hold to Reformed Theology. In that, I don't think they are quite analogous to the PCUSA because that denomination still has many Christians there, but they are "broadly evangelical" by now and have lost their Reformed Theology distinctives. 

The CRC still has some Reformed Theology left, and people are genuining contending for that-which is quite an encouragement to those in it now or who are praying for denominational renewal.


----------



## kvanlaan

We are currently in the midst of this same issue. I am not sure that I can retain my membership in the CRC with a clear conscience - there are simply too many holes in the bucket to hold any water as a denomination. I was actually talking to an elder a couple of weeks ago who told me that our particular church doesn't identify with the CRC much any more. (And that's classis Hamilton). We've got women deacons (and even some elders in the more liberal congregations, I believe). With Calvin seminary ordaining women, who can honestly say that there is much of a future? Synod is not only accepting female delegates, but voting them into executive positions: Thea Leunk, Vice President?!?!?!?! With the leadership nearly as circus-like as the Episcopals, I am cringing to thing who will take Jerry Van Dyk's place when he's done.


----------



## Calvinist Cowboy

Guido's Brother said:


> Seb said:
> 
> 
> 
> It seems like more and more of the conservative congregations are throwing in the towel. I can't say that I blame them, but it's sad. Every time a conservative congregation leaves the power shifts more to the liberal factions in the CRCNA.
> 
> It's really hard to watch this shift continue. With every Synod those who have an agenda contrary to Christ's, are more empowered.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I can understand the reasons why people stay. But given the bureaucratic polity in the CRCNA, it seems to be a vain hope to think that local congregations can effect meaningful change in the church as a whole. I mean, if you look at the history, it's all about Grand Rapids: CRC Headquarters, Calvin College and Calvin Seminary. Whoever controls those, steers the course of the CRC. The battle was already lost in the 1960s and 1970s.
Click to expand...


I wouldn't say the battle is over yet. Just look at Southern Baptist Seminary, which was once a stronghold of liberalism. Yet, God has providentially raised up godly men, like Al Mohler, to change the course of the seminary. There does come a point when further fighting is useless and it is better to leave a denomination, but don't give up fighting until that line is crossed!


----------



## kvanlaan

> Women in Ecclesiastical Office - Christian Reformed Church



It's not the issue itself (though I know I seem to keep harping on it), but how the changes were made and the attitude/reasons to changing what was the _status quo_.

Another big issue is that while I and my wife may be fine with doctrinally sifting what comes from the pulpit/classis/synod, it is our children that are going to have to deal with the doctrinal laxness - I don't see that they are mature enough to make those sorts of differentiations right now. And the constant 'little talks' from Mom and Dad on why this, that, and the other are not kosher is getting old really fast.


----------



## Seb

I've a feeling the Paedocommunion decision, that they are going to make in the next 4-5 years, is finally going push many over the edge.

I know for us that's going to be a huge problem, if they go the way that I fear they will.


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Well we do have an ARP in Bradenton...


----------



## Seb

Backwoods Presbyterian said:


> Well we do have an ARP in Bradenton...



Yeah I know, and it's at the top of my list. 

They're not all Pittsburgh fans are they?


----------



## Backwoods Presbyterian

Good question.


----------



## N. Eshelman

I am pretty sure that they allow for paedo-communion now. One of the latest seminary magazines dedicated a bit to this issue and the position is that all baptized members are entitled to the elements. 

On another note: This year they have a female homiletics prof as well. (And she was the pastor of the famous Eastern Ave CRC that kicked Herman Hoeksema out in the 1920s.)


----------



## kvanlaan

"famous" or "infamous"?

I had no idea that church was at this sort of thing already in the 1920's...


----------



## mvdm

kvanlaan said:


> We are currently in the midst of this same issue. I am not sure that I can retain my membership in the CRC with a clear conscience - there are simply too many holes in the bucket to hold any water as a denomination. I was actually talking to an elder a couple of weeks ago who told me that our particular church doesn't identify with the CRC much any more. (And that's classis Hamilton). We've got women deacons (and even some elders in the more liberal congregations, I believe). With Calvin seminary ordaining women, who can honestly say that there is much of a future? Synod is not only accepting female delegates, but voting them into executive positions: Thea Leunk, Vice President?!?!?!?! With the leadership nearly as circus-like as the Episcopals, I am cringing to thing who will take Jerry Van Dyk's place when he's done.



I think you mean Jerry Dykstra, Executive Director of the CRC. Perhaps you made a freudian slip thinking about the comedian Jerry Van Dyke  Understandable mistake.


----------



## kvanlaan

Yes! Jerry Dykstra - sorry!


----------



## N. Eshelman

At least he didn't say Jerry Springer!


----------



## JohnV

greenbaggins said:


> Guido's Brother said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> greenbaggins said:
> 
> 
> 
> The only classis that does not seat women delegates is my own classis, Minnkota. They are still fighting, but are gradually losing their will to fight, I think. When the liberals are in charge, and they aren't listening to the conservatives AT ALL, then it gets difficult to want to stay in.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's great that there's still one classis holding out, along with any number of local churches. But it must be difficult to hold your position on women's ordination in the local church and at classis, only to go to synod and have not only women delegates seated around you, but also on the executive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep. That's our entire problem. Now, we have to go to a synod that we believe is illegitimately constituted. I am pushing rather strongly for non-involvement, since signing a letter of protest (that abysmal dog-bone that the liberals threw to the poor, defeated conservatives) is simply not sufficient. Eventually, we will give up even signing, since signing a protest does nothing, and is not even recorded anywhere important.
Click to expand...


I'd have to disagree with this, but not in the sense that I find issue with Lane's observation. It might well be quite accurate for his area. But my personal observations would differ with the "That's the entire problem" part of Lane's point of view. The whole problem is their change in their view of the Bible as authority. All the other problems fall under that issue.


----------



## kvanlaan

If you read a lot of the documentation surrounding the decisions, you will find a dearth of biblical references. It is more talk of 'making progress' (see any of the articles from the Synod 2006 Banner or even the most recent Synod 2008 Banner issue). It's like they feel that throwing scripture into the mix will only 'muddy the waters' so they'll stick to talking about 'inclusiveness' and 'progress'.


----------



## JohnV

I think you're right, Kevin, though I don't have any proof of that anymore. Back when I was still in the CRC then there was a lot of disagreement over the five major issues. These discussions would often argue over different personal interpretations over the same texts; and at some point it became moot to cite any proof texts at all. At the grass roots level this was what was happening.

But that's not really what I was referring to. I was thinking about the fact that the early arguments for women-in-office, for example, could write off texts as "culture" or "temporal" simply because they didn't fit with this present culture. To be able to do that to any part of the Bible was a great shift from 20 or 30 years earlier.


----------



## JohnV

There still is some good in the CRC. I've seen it for myself. In the past their ecclesiology was surpassed by none, in my estimation. On some things they could fall a long ways before others catch up, even the more orthodox denominations. They may have fallen on their qualifications for office, but their practice of oversight and help within their congregations from the offices is still better than some orthodox churches I've known. 

There's a depth of practice there that is not easily wiped away. There is still a flicker of the old CRC burning there, it seems to me.


----------



## calgal

kvanlaan said:


> We are currently in the midst of this same issue. I am not sure that I can retain my membership in the CRC with a clear conscience - there are simply too many holes in the bucket to hold any water as a denomination. I was actually talking to an elder a couple of weeks ago who told me that our particular church doesn't identify with the CRC much any more. (And that's classis Hamilton). We've got women deacons (and even some elders in the more liberal congregations, I believe). With Calvin seminary ordaining women, who can honestly say that there is much of a future? Synod is not only accepting female delegates, but voting them into executive positions: *Thea Leunk, Vice President?!?!?!?! * With the leadership nearly as circus-like as the Episcopals, I am cringing to thing who will take Jerry Van Dyk's place when he's done.



 Was that at the last synod?


----------



## Greg

Thanks for the input everyone.



Heldveld said:


> Christian Reformed Church- I've never heard of this particular denomination before.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Being from West Michigan that is just a totally foreign concept.
> 
> I grew up CRC went to the RCA (you've probably never heard of them either) and now am in the URCNA. As mentioned there are some good and some bad churches in the denomination. I'm encouraged by those who wish to see changes and pray for the efforts.
> 
> There are some 'famous' CRC people L. Berkhof and C. VanTil (raised in and pastored a CRC church).
Click to expand...


Yea, sorry about that...I figured that might be an ignorant question to ask. We just moved and there's a CRC church around here, so I was just trying to learn a little bit about them as we're trying to find a church home.


----------



## Seb

nleshelman said:


> I am pretty sure that they allow for paedo-communion now. One of the latest seminary magazines dedicated a bit to this issue and the position is that all baptized members are entitled to the elements.



They started to allow it, and then pulled back from it for a "study" that has up to four more years to provide their report.

The Banner - No Communion Without Profession


----------



## Seb

calgal said:


> Was that at the last synod?



Sadly yes. From Synod 2008 Wrap-up - Christian Reformed Church



> Synod 2008 Wrap-up: Decisions at a Glance
> 
> Synod 2008 made history by welcoming women as delegates and then by electing a woman to its executive.
> 
> Rev. Thea Leunk, pastor of Eastern Avenue Christian Reformed Church in Grand Rapids, Mich., was elected vice president of the Christian Reformed Church in North America’s annual general assembly, which opened Saturday morning at Calvin College in Grand Rapids.
> 
> Rev. Joel Boot, the pastor of Ridgewood CRC in Jenison, Mich., was elected as president of synod for the second year in a row. “Sisters and brothers, this has been a long time in coming. This is an historic occasion,” said Boot in his opening remarks. “Last year’s synod made what is happening at this synod permissible. This year’s synod must show that this is possible.”


----------



## R. Scott Clark

The CRC is in transition, not, as some think, directly to liberalism but to the dominant American religion, "evangelicalism." The CRC is not much like it was theologically or liturgically (theology, piety, and practice) even 50 years ago. The CRC is headed, indirectly, to the mainline. We can always hope and pray but since Synod '95 they've not moved in a confessional direction on a single major issue. That's why I call them a "borderline" church, as distinct from the NAPARC (sideline), and liberal mainline (NCC).

See Recovering the Reformed Confession for more.


----------



## kvanlaan

So in such a case, what is the best route for CRC members? Stay and fight, or leave? For myself, I would stay and fight to bring back orthodoxy. But it is the environment that my children will live in that worries me. Some of what young women are wearing to church is simply beyond the pale. What are considered acceptable practises by teenagers would ground my children for a month. 

So what to do?


----------



## kvanlaan

> But that's not really what I was referring to. I was thinking about the fact that the early arguments for women-in-office, for example, could write off texts as "culture" or "temporal" simply because they didn't fit with this present culture. To be able to do that to any part of the Bible was a great shift from 20 or 30 years earlier.



But if we have the 3FU in hand, and good bible commentaries, this could not happen. There's where I think the CRC walked away from the confessions and commentaries and went with "This is what the Lord is saying to me right now," coupled with Zondervan's "What's Cool for Your Church Today, 9th edition". Disaster.



> Was that at the last synod?



You betcha. And if you got the Banner the next month, she's on the cover, smiling like a Cheshire cat.


----------



## calgal

Seb said:


> calgal said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was that at the last synod?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sadly yes. From Synod 2008 Wrap-up - Christian Reformed Church
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Synod 2008 Wrap-up: Decisions at a Glance
> 
> Synod 2008 made history by welcoming women as delegates and then by electing a woman to its executive.
> 
> Rev. Thea Leunk, pastor of Eastern Avenue Christian Reformed Church in Grand Rapids, Mich., was elected vice president of the Christian Reformed Church in North America’s annual general assembly, which opened Saturday morning at Calvin College in Grand Rapids.
> 
> Rev. Joel Boot, the pastor of Ridgewood CRC in Jenison, Mich., was elected as president of synod for the second year in a row. “Sisters and brothers, this has been a long time in coming. This is an historic occasion,” said Boot in his opening remarks. “Last year’s synod made what is happening at this synod permissible. This year’s synod must show that this is possible.”
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Oh dear.


----------



## N. Eshelman

R. Scott Clark said:


> The CRC is in transition, not, as some think, directly to liberalism but to the dominant American religion, "evangelicalism." The CRC is not much like it was theologically or liturgically (theology, piety, and practice) even 50 years ago. The CRC is headed, indirectly, to the mainline. We can always hope and pray but since Synod '95 they've not moved in a confessional direction on a single major issue. That's why I call them a "borderline" church, as distinct from the NAPARC (sideline), and liberal mainline (NCC).
> 
> See Recovering the Reformed Confession for more.



*PLUG! *
I have not started the book yet, but I have had a friend who is really into it read me paragraphs. Looking forward to it!


----------



## Leslie

In '86 I had a theological discussion with an emeritus professor from Calvin. In response to my questions, he kept quoting the confessions by heart. After an hour or so of this I said, "You keep quoting the confessions. When I grew up people made a lot of "Sola scriptura". What ever happened to that?
His reply was, "Oh, no one reads the Bible anymore. Theological understanding is so much easier with the confessions."

My theory which may be wrong: In the demise of a church or a denomination, a common scenario is that sola scriptura first becomes sola confession. The Bible is put aside as the passages that teach truths not taken up by the confessions are simply ignored. Then the confessions are put aside with perceived impunity because they are not infallible anyway. Sola synod comes to reign.

Note that by truths not taken up, I don't mean to imply that these passages contradict the confessions. It's simply that the writers of the confessions set out to outline systematic theology, not to exhaustively interpret every passage. An example would be the scriptural teaching on gluttony.


----------



## Seb

I've talked at length with a CRC pastor who expressed the same problem.

He said when he attended WTS Philly that he could quote the HC front and back but soon realized that he didn't know the Scripture proofs behind those doctrinal summaries expressed in the catechism. 

Conversations with others in my Church that were raised CRC have said the pretty much the same thing. The HC was drilled into them in rote memory style, but they didn't study and "learn" the Scripture that goes with it.


----------



## DMcFadden

nleshelman said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> The CRC is in transition, not, as some think, directly to liberalism but to the dominant American religion, "evangelicalism." The CRC is not much like it was theologically or liturgically (theology, piety, and practice) even 50 years ago. The CRC is headed, indirectly, to the mainline. We can always hope and pray but since Synod '95 they've not moved in a confessional direction on a single major issue. That's why I call them a "borderline" church, as distinct from the NAPARC (sideline), and liberal mainline (NCC).
> 
> See Recovering the Reformed Confession for more.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *PLUG! *
> I have not started the book yet, but I have had a friend who is really into it read me paragraphs. Looking forward to it!
Click to expand...


I started it on the plane this week. While I cannot follow him on all points (e.g., 6 day creation), it is a GREAT read!


----------



## Kaalvenist

Guido's Brother said:


> I noticed a news items just yesterday about another CRC going URCNA, this one in Visalia, CA.


Do you know which one? I grew up ten minutes from Visalia, and there's two CRCs there, one of which runs a K-12 school. It would be great for me to recommend to my semi-Reformed family; the RP church in Fresno is just a bit too far for them to commit to, especially since they're not RPs.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Conversations with others in my Church that were raised CRC have said the pretty much the same thing. The HC was drilled into them in rote memory style, but they didn't study and "learn" the Scripture that goes with it.





That wasn't my experience, but wow.


----------



## Scott1

> Leslie;
> 
> In '86 I had a theological discussion with an emeritus professor from Calvin. In response to my questions, he kept quoting the confessions by heart. After an hour or so of this I said, "You keep quoting the confessions. When I grew up people made a lot of "Sola scriptura". What ever happened to that?
> His reply was, "Oh, no one reads the Bible anymore. Theological understanding is so much easier with the confessions."



It would be easy to agree that, somehow, the church would be more scriptural if only we did not have a Confession. Non-credal churches sometimes make that claim- that they are more "spiritual" because they let everyone read the Bible, and evaluate everything themselves, and not require they be bound by or even have to consider a creed.

The problem with that is that, 
1) What doctrine summarized in the Confession specifically do they disagree with?
2) As church's fall away, they quit following the Confession as well as the Scripture.




> My theory which may be wrong: In the demise of a church or a denomination, a common scenario is that sola scriptura first becomes sola confession. The Bible is put aside as the passages that teach truths not taken up by the confessions are simply ignored.



If you believe the Confession is putting aside Scripture, you must take an exception to the statement or proposition that you think is doing that.

Confessions can be amended, which shows they are not infallible.

If you cannot receive the Confession as a faithful summary of the doctrine contained in Scripture, one should not be in a Confessional Church.

*What doctrine, specifically, do you believe the Confession gets (biblically) wrong?*


> I don't mean to imply that these passages contradict the confessions.



I don't understand what you mean here- if the Confession is not contradicting Scripture why would you not receive it as a faithful summary of the doctrine contained in Scripture?



> It's simply that the writers of the confessions set out to outline systematic theology, not to exhaustively interpret every passage. An example would be the scriptural teaching on gluttony.



That's right- the Confession is not intended to cover every single doctrine or proposition of Scripture, so how is the confession replacing scripture (and that, incorrectly) in these instances when it doesn't even address it? It seems the problem here would not be with the Confession, since it doesn't address that doctrine?

*Can you name one denomination that has abandoned its historic Confession and become more biblical?*

Remember, in Reformed Theology, the unity of the church must be based on doctrinal agreement.


----------



## mvdm

Kaalvenist said:


> Guido's Brother said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed a news items just yesterday about another CRC going URCNA, this one in Visalia, CA.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know which one? I grew up ten minutes from Visalia, and there's two CRCs there, one of which runs a K-12 school. It would be great for me to recommend to my semi-Reformed family; the RP church in Fresno is just a bit too far for them to commit to, especially since they're not RPs.
Click to expand...


Trinity CRC. Here's their website:

Trinity Christian Reformed Church of Visalia - Sermons


----------



## Kaalvenist

mvdm said:


> Kaalvenist said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Guido's Brother said:
> 
> 
> 
> I noticed a news items just yesterday about another CRC going URCNA, this one in Visalia, CA.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know which one? I grew up ten minutes from Visalia, and there's two CRCs there, one of which runs a K-12 school. It would be great for me to recommend to my semi-Reformed family; the RP church in Fresno is just a bit too far for them to commit to, especially since they're not RPs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Trinity CRC. Here's their website:
> 
> Trinity Christian Reformed Church of Visalia - Sermons
Click to expand...

Thanks Mark. I figured it was probably Trinity... the pictures of 1st CRC's "worship services" didn't look like they're ready for the URCs anytime soon. Do you have any other info? I'm guessing it was decided at a congregational meeting or something quite recently... when the full transition will take place, will they be able to keep the building, etc.?


----------



## jaybird0827

kvanlaan said:


> So in such a case, what is the best route for CRC members? Stay and fight, or leave? For myself, I would stay and fight to bring back orthodoxy. But it is the environment that my children will live in that worries me. Some of what young women are wearing to church is simply beyond the pale. What are considered acceptable practises by teenagers would ground my children for a month.
> 
> So what to do?


 
Kevin,

I was faced with a similar decision when I was in the PC(USA) back in the 80's. I was concerned not only with the teaching that we were imbibing as a family and my responsibility (and accountability!) as spiritual head of the house. We simply could no longer stay as "missionaries" to the denomination. I especially had to think of our son quickly rising to Sunday school age and how far the PC(USA) agenda had gotten as far as the curriculum. 

Considering all things, I opted to move us to the PCA.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

> I started it on the plane this week. While I cannot follow him on all points (e.g., 6 day creation), it is a GREAT read!



Hi Dennis,

What did you read me to say about 6 day creation?


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Hi Mary,

I don't know who that was, but his comments are, as far as I know, not representative of what's been happening in the CRC since the 1950s. Someone, in this discussion, said something about people in the CRC learning the HC by rote. Again, I ask, when was that? Precious few catechumens have been asked to memorize the HC for quite a long time.

Confessional Reformed folk do believe and practice _sola scriptura_. Indeed, we confess _sola Scriptura_ in our catechism and confession! It's appropriate for someone to quote the catechism as the summary of the Reformed understanding of Scripture because we confess what we do because we believe it's biblical.

That doesn't mean that our people, officers and laity, should be excused from knowing God's Word thoroughly and being able to discuss it intelligently. it's not an either/or matter. It's a matter of "both...and." The catechism does summarize a great deal of Scripture. It's what Van Til (and many others) have called "the one and the many." The catechism and confession give us a broad over view of the panorama of Scripture. 

I'm so glad this man was able to quote the Three Forms by heart! God bless him. If the CRC had more like him they wouldn't be ordaining females, and rejecting Q. 80, allowing paedocommunion, indeed there wouldn't have been a split in '95. 

Did he really say "Oh, no one reads the Bible anymore. Theological understanding is so much easier with the confessions."

If so, he was quite errant. If one reads the recent Muether biography of Van Til one will see a nice picture of the old Reformed piety. Kees Van Til grew up hearing God's Word read at the table every day and he did it himself. Reformed piety is thoroughly biblical. If that prof said what you report, then he wasn't being faithful to the confession and catechism he was quoting! 

As to your theory that _sola Scriptura_ becomes "sola confession," can you give us an example where this has happened? I ask because, as I read modern church history, the pattern has been *exactly* the opposite. The American Presbyterians began marginalizing the confession in the 18th century, and gradually it became immaterial to their theology, piety, and practice. The same is true of the RCA, the old German Reformed Church and so on. I can't think of a single example of where _sola Scriptura_ became _sola confessio_.

I don't know exactly when the CRC began to set the catechism and confession aside, but there is some evidence that it was happening, in some ways in the 1920s, as "conservatives" began to ignore the RPW. By the 60s there was open rebellion in the CRC against the Canons (e.g. Harry Boer), and by '75/'76 the HC was being marginalized. Who could memorize the '76 translation?


----------



## Seb

R. Scott Clark said:


> Someone, in this discussion, said something about people in the CRC learning the HC by rote. Again, I ask, when was that? Precious few catechumens have been asked to memorize the HC for quite a long time.



That was me.

The folks I've met at my Church that were Catechized this way are mostly 55+ years old. Nowadays many of these same people almost have a disdain for the HC. 

The whole experience to them was very legalistic and not comforting nor gracious. They weren't so much "taught" the HC, it was more drilled into them. I know it's wasn't the fault of the HC. It was over zealous parents that treated the HC as the "final truth" rather than "a teaching tool". When they describe what they went through I'm reminded of the nun in the Blues Brothers movie.

But thankfully that experience and opinion is not shared by all in that generation. There still quite a few elders (and thankfully Elders too ) at out Church that are crying out for the TFU to be taught and held in high esteem in the CRC again.

I don't know how much to be encouraged by it, but the Spring '08 issue of CTS's Forum magazine was exclusively about the CRC returning to the confessions. It had an interesting a round-table discussion / article where some of the staff talked about the need for the CRC to come back to the confessions and why they think she abandoned them over the past couple of decades. They also alluded to some of the same sentiments and experiences that I'm hearing from folks in my local Church.

I pray that our Denomination returns to her previous truths and obedience to the Scripture's plain and clear teaching that she walked away from in the name of tolerance and eccumenticalism.

Interesting sidebar: 

My Pastor laments the low attendance of teens in HC class. 

He says that when he was young, the HC teaching materials were poor, but the turnout was great because parents knew how important it was. 

Nowadays there are great HC teaching materials, but he can't get the parents to bring their parents to class.

It's as though the bad experiences and horror stories of some in previous generations, has helped create this problem and put them on the road to fundy / Evangelicalism.


----------



## Leslie

I have no problem in having the confessions. I have a few differences but nothing much and I expressed these when joining the PB.

*The problem is one of emphasis. One doesn't have to reject the confessions, but In my humble opinion it is akin to treason to place them on a par with scripture by implication.*

As has been written in previous posts, children are made to memorize long passages from the HC but not the scriptures. In the catechism classes I attended the scriptures were ignored. The teacher didn't have to have a Bible with him or her. What value system was taught by this? Wasn't it that HC was primary and scripture secondary? Was it not that the Bible is valuable merely as a database for the confessions but is otherwise irrelevant?

Also sermons in the churches referenced the HC far more than the scriptures. A pastor would read a short scripture passage, then a HC question and answer and from there on in it was all HC, teaching without reference to either supporting or problematic scriptures. He was teaching children, not verbally but by example, and implication, that the HC is at least on a par if not better than the scriptures.

It doesn't have to be that way. I've attended a CR church with relatives in which the pastor holds the scriptures in high esteem and the HC is "oh by the way, this fits". This pastor reads large sections of scripture and explains them. If and when the HC is applicable, he'll read a short passage. The first time I heard this guy my response was, "He certainly wasn't raised CR; he honors the scriptures far too much." I was right. He wasn't raised CR.




Scott1 said:


> Leslie;
> 
> In '86 I had a theological discussion with an emeritus professor from Calvin. In response to my questions, he kept quoting the confessions by heart. After an hour or so of this I said, "You keep quoting the confessions. When I grew up people made a lot of "Sola scriptura". What ever happened to that?
> His reply was, "Oh, no one reads the Bible anymore. Theological understanding is so much easier with the confessions."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It would be easy to agree that, somehow, the church would be more scriptural if only we did not have a Confession. Non-credal churches sometimes make that claim- that they are more "spiritual" because they let everyone read the Bible, and evaluate everything themselves, and not require they be bound by or even have to consider a creed.
> 
> The problem with that is that,
> 1) What doctrine summarized in the Confession specifically do they disagree with?
> 2) As church's fall away, they quit following the Confession as well as the Scripture.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My theory which may be wrong: In the demise of a church or a denomination, a common scenario is that sola scriptura first becomes sola confession. The Bible is put aside as the passages that teach truths not taken up by the confessions are simply ignored.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you believe the Confession is putting aside Scripture, you must take an exception to the statement or proposition that you think is doing that.
> 
> Confessions can be amended, which shows they are not infallible.
> 
> If you cannot receive the Confession as a faithful summary of the doctrine contained in Scripture, one should not be in a Confessional Church.
> 
> *What doctrine, specifically, do you believe the Confession gets (biblically) wrong?*
> 
> 
> 
> I don't mean to imply that these passages contradict the confessions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't understand what you mean here- if the Confession is not contradicting Scripture why would you not receive it as a faithful summary of the doctrine contained in Scripture?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's simply that the writers of the confessions set out to outline systematic theology, not to exhaustively interpret every passage. An example would be the scriptural teaching on gluttony.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's right- the Confession is not intended to cover every single doctrine or proposition of Scripture, so how is the confession replacing scripture (and that, incorrectly) in these instances when it doesn't even address it? It seems the problem here would not be with the Confession, since it doesn't address that doctrine?
> 
> *Can you name one denomination that has abandoned its historic Confession and become more biblical?*
> 
> Remember, in Reformed Theology, the unity of the church must be based on doctrinal agreement.
Click to expand...


----------



## mvdm

Kaalvenist said:


> mvdm said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kaalvenist said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you know which one? I grew up ten minutes from Visalia, and there's two CRCs there, one of which runs a K-12 school. It would be great for me to recommend to my semi-Reformed family; the RP church in Fresno is just a bit too far for them to commit to, especially since they're not RPs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Trinity CRC. Here's their website:
> 
> Trinity Christian Reformed Church of Visalia - Sermons
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks Mark. I figured it was probably Trinity... the pictures of 1st CRC's "worship services" didn't look like they're ready for the URCs anytime soon. Do you have any other info? I'm guessing it was decided at a congregational meeting or something quite recently... when the full transition will take place, will they be able to keep the building, etc.?
Click to expand...


Trinity had been absenting themselves from Classis meetings for about 2 years. The last couple of Synods especially demonstrated to Trinity that the denomination shows no evidence it ever intends to repent. After the consistory provided guidance and time for reflection, the congregation voted {approx. 94%} to leave the CRC {or as I like to say, to finally recognize that the CRC had long ago left them}. That was followed this summer by another congregational vote {approx. 96%} to seek membership in the URC. The URC approved acceptance of Trinity this week, so the important transition is now complete: Trinity is now a URC church. Just need to change the bulletin, church sign, website, secretary state filing, etc.

So yes, the property stayed with the congregation. No loss of membership. In fact, there are signs there will be some numerical growth.


----------



## DMcFadden

R. Scott Clark said:


> I started it on the plane this week. While I cannot follow him on all points (e.g., 6 day creation), it is a GREAT read!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Dennis,
> 
> What did you read me to say about 6 day creation?
Click to expand...


Oops! I was just trying to commend your book as a great read, not engage the author and reveal my own narrowness.  Over the past decade, my thinking has moved from a pretty open Hugh Ross type agnosticism regarding origins ("as long as there was a literal Adam and fall, I don't care about the timetable") taught to me at Westmont and Fuller to a more traditional interpretation (cf. Kelly, Mohler, or Sproul).

You were heard by me as saying that young earth creationism ("6/24 creation") ought not be a boundary marker for Reformed orthodoxy. You associate 6/24 creation with a fundamentalizing QIRC. Specifically, you summarize the argument of the 6/24 boundary marker folks as saying that the Bible teaches a 6/24 view of creation and not to accept the Bible's teaching here is tantamount to not believing it anywhere. You see the argument in such form as being fallacious, comparing it to Luther against Zwingli at Marburg.

Grudem has convinced me that evangelical feminism bears a causal relationship to liberalism as a precursor. In a similar way, it seems to me that some of the difficulties we face with uncertainty regarding homosexuality today have more than an accidental connection to a refusal to take Genesis 1-11 at face value. Some of the science types (PhDs in biochemistry, astrophysics, and genetics) at Answers in Genesis have been effective in convincing me that the data of science are compatible with a more or less straight forward reading of Genesis. The problem would not seem to be with the "science" per se, but with the presuppositional worldview (naturalism vs. theism) that animates the proponents in the discussion. 

We would probably both agree that good people of impeccable orthodoxy can be found on both sides of this issue and that it ought *not* be a boundary marker for orthodoxy. My contention, however, would be that while people like Kline hold their view for honest exegetical reasons, such mediating and compromising positions tend towards "too clever by half" evasions of the "plain" or "staightforward" meaning of the text in places such as Romans 1 or 1 Timothy 2.

Stated reductionistically, when scholars try to interpret the text saying that "you think it means this because it says that, but it REALLY means something else according to this very technically complex rabbit trail of argumentation I will lead you down," the practical result is a loss of confidence in the perspicuity of the Bible. For example, some of the strongest proponents for the "no divorce" exegesis behind the "consanguineous marriage view" (aka "incest" view) are utterly orthodox conservatives with the best of intentions. However, I have seen these kinds of exegetical gymnastics used to "explain away" the Biblical force of Pauline dicta regarding homosexuality and women in leadership.

Back on point . . . I might quibble with you on how important 6/24 creation should be (yet *still *agree with you that it ought not be a boundary marker for orthodoxy any more than one's view of the millennium), but that was my *only *demurer regarding your OUTSTANDING book. As one rapidly moving from a Calvinistic Baptist position to a more Reformed point of view, I resonate with almost everything you say in *RRC* (at least as far as my reading has taken me). 

You have done a great service by the publication of this book. Thanks!


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Thanks Dennis, I appreciate the encouragement. 

I asked because I wanted to be sure that I was being understood. I didn't want to say more in the question because I wanted to see what you would say.

For what it's worth, I think I am taking Gen 1-2 "at face value," but I understand what you're saying.

Thanks.



DMcFadden said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I started it on the plane this week. While I cannot follow him on all points (e.g., 6 day creation), it is a GREAT read!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Dennis,
> 
> What did you read me to say about 6 day creation?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oops! I was just trying to commend your book as a great read, not engage the author and reveal my own narrowness.  Over the past decade, my thinking has moved from a pretty open Hugh Ross type agnosticism regarding origins ("as long as there was a literal Adam and fall, I don't care about the timetable") taught to me at Westmont and Fuller to a more traditional interpretation (cf. Kelly, Mohler, or Sproul).
> 
> You were heard by me as saying that young earth creationism ("6/24 creation") ought not be a boundary marker for Reformed orthodoxy. You associate 6/24 creation with a fundamentalizing QIRC. Specifically, you summarize the argument of the 6/24 boundary marker folks as saying that the Bible teaches a 6/24 view of creation and not to accept the Bible's teaching here is tantamount to not believing it anywhere. You see the argument in such form as being fallacious, comparing it to Luther against Zwingli at Marburg.
> 
> Grudem has convinced me that evangelical feminism bears a causal relationship to liberalism as a precursor. In a similar way, it seems to me that some of the difficulties we face with uncertainty regarding homosexuality today have more than an accidental connection to a refusal to take Genesis 1-11 at face value. Some of the science types (PhDs in biochemistry, astrophysics, and genetics) at Answers in Genesis have been effective in convincing me that the data of science are compatible with a more or less straight forward reading of Genesis. The problem would not seem to be with the "science" per se, but with the presuppositional worldview (naturalism vs. theism) that animates the proponents in the discussion.
> 
> We would probably both agree that good people of impeccable orthodoxy can be found on both sides of this issue and that it ought *not* be a boundary marker for orthodoxy. My contention, however, would be that while people like Kline hold their view for honest exegetical reasons, such mediating and compromising positions tend towards "too clever by half" evasions of the "plain" or "staightforward" meaning of the text in places such as Romans 1 or 1 Timothy 2.
> 
> Stated reductionistically, when scholars try to interpret the text saying that "you think it means this because it says that, but it REALLY means something else according to this very technically complex rabbit trail of argumentation I will lead you down," the practical result is a loss of confidence in the perspicuity of the Bible. For example, some of the strongest proponents for the "no divorce" exegesis behind the "consanguineous marriage view" (aka "incest" view) are utterly orthodox conservatives with the best of intentions. However, I have seen these kinds of exegetical gymnastics used to "explain away" the Biblical force of Pauline dicta regarding homosexuality and women in leadership.
> 
> Back on point . . . I might quibble with you on how important 6/24 creation should be (yet *still *agree with you that it ought not be a boundary marker for orthodoxy any more than one's view of the millennium), but that was my *only *demurer regarding your OUTSTANDING book. As one rapidly moving from a Calvinistic Baptist position to a more Reformed point of view, I resonate with almost everything you say in *RRC* (at least as far as my reading has taken me).
> 
> You have done a great service by the publication of this book. Thanks!
Click to expand...


----------



## KenPierce

I agree with Scott. Growing up amid the CRC (though myself RCA), one has to marvel at how productive that relatively-small denomination was for the kingdom of God (maybe that's why Billy called it the sleeping giant?). I mean: Bethany, a gozillion excellent Christian schools, Calvin, 3 of the top Christian publishers in the US (Baker, Zondervan, and Eerdmans), the NIV (for good or ill), top notch scholars heretofore mentioned, the list goes on and on.

All of it was the fruit of a comprehensive world and life view. That is now going away, sad to say, in the interests of being like everybody else.


----------



## JohnV

To throw another thing into the mix, I grew up in an immigrant CR church. The CRC was by then Eighty yrs. old and counting, and we were relatively new to it. Our local church consisted mostly of people well trained in Reformed doctrine, though very few of them had any more than a High School level education. Some could recite any Psalm and any Catechism answer upon request. Being a new church we were a no-nonsense type church, relying on the simple gospel grounded in a long tradition of Reformed testimony. The men may not have had much of an education but they know about doctrine, about church, and how to adminster the offices. My parents didn't have much, but they gave liberally to various necessities, such as school and missions, on top of their sacrifices for the physical church. 

That's the church I grew up in.


----------



## Grymir

Hello all, my name is Lynn. I am wife to Grymir (Tim). I have asked that my husband post this for me.

The CRC is a subject dear to my heart. This may sound strange, but here's my experience in the CRC....

Born and raised in Grand Rapids.

In 1968, my mother, was a divorced woman struggling alone with 3 young daughters. I am the oldest. With the exception of a few visits to an undenominational and a Baptist church, we were unchurched.

She met a single man at her place of employment who expressed interest. He was Dutch, multi-generational CRC. He married my mom in a CRC church in GR in 1969. I was 8 years old. To his credit, he took his new duties seriously, even to the point of legally adopting us girls, so we'd all have the same last name.

He immediately imposed upon his new family all the "rules" of a "good Dutch family". Strict Sabbatarian, HC memorization, Catechism classes, on and on ad infinitum. Or so it seemed to me at the time. LOL!! 

He tried, hard. He really did. 

In my opinion, his church (and most of his family) let him down. Big time.

His family wondered why he wanted to "ruin things" by marrying a divorced woman with kids. His parents supported him 100% and treated us well, but with the sole exception of his sister, his sibs were a whole nother story....

My sisters and I were baptised (dedicated?) in 1969. Sprinkled in front of the whole congregation, very few of whom ever spoke to us. Afterwards, we were forever teased by other kids, as being "infants".

Ya'll have no idea how many times I heard on the Lord's Day....."If ya ain't Dutch, ya ain't much."

If all that wasn't enough, we were derided regularly because my mom and step-dad decided to keep us kids in public schools, rather than enroll us in Christian school. I overheard a coversation between them once. Adjusting was becoming difficult at best, and they feared more ill-treatment for us girls "another 5 days a week."

It was like that until 1972, they bought a new house out in the suburbs. Dad decided to check out a couple of different churches in that area, rather than travel all the way into town on Sundays. RCA if I remember correctly. He said "they were just too liberal for his tastes." LOL!!

He wanted to go back to our CRC home, but my mom objected. All pious hypocrites, she ranted. Exclusionary. Separatist. Elitist. All they wanted was money. They treated us non-Dutch folks horribly. 

My mom sure didn't learn much about "that submission thing." They argued about that, too.

Dad caved. We completely stopped going to church in 1973.

Looking back with the eyes of an adult, I think he was heartbroken and became quite depressed. I really do. Many years later I asked him why we quit. He said it wasn't worth fighting with mom about anymore, and it hurt him to see how his family was treated.

He told me once that he secretly wished someone from the church would have called, or visited after noticing us gone, but I don't believe anyone ever did. Maybe with reinforcements from the elders or something, he would have stood his ground and insisted we go to church. I dunno.

Mom is gone now, almost 3 years, and she died an alcholic. Dad will be 80 next spring, is alcholic and has NEVER been back to a church for a worship service. EVER. 

My youngest sister is a crack addict, and my other sister drinks too much. I am the only one sober, and doing my best to follow the Lord and learn how He would have me to be, to HIS GLORY ALONE.

When my mom was dying of cancer, I asked many times if I could contact a church in his area, and see if I could get someone to visit him. My PCUSA pastor here in the Quad-Cities was willing to try to help get someone to him back in MI. 

He wasn't interested. It's very sad. Please pray that he repents before it's too late. My sisters, too.

For the longest time, I was so mad at the CRC and by extension, God Himself I guess. For how my family turned out....Not any more. I don't understand God's reasoning for allowing all this, but I'm confident in His Grace to somehow use my story for good.

Pastors-check on those sheep that have wandered from the fold, will ya?

Now, as for my CRC training, it was pretty much exclusively rote memorization HC, not much Scripture. I remember sitting with the family Dutch Bible and a English KJV, trying to teach myself some Dutch. Dad guarded that Dutch Bible, and I recall being surprised that he allowed me to even handle it. Only at the dining room table, and closely atched. LOL!!

In the summers growing up, we spent weeks on end with many cousins, visiting at my maternal grandmothers rural 10 acre playground. Not much for rural kids to do during the summer, so a Baptist church regularly sent a bus around for multiple weeks of VBS. All Scripture, all the time, and only KJV Scripture there, for sure. 

Do you Baptisits have kids still do Sword Drills? I loved those!! Worked hard to memorize the books of the Bible in Order one summer just so I win Sword Drills more often! LOL!!

God is gracious. Solidly Reformed, but understanding the primacy of God's Word. Maybe I got the best of both worlds, so to speak?

Anyone at our PCUSA church that has knowledge of the CRC has asked me if I was from Pella, IA. Have never been there, but I've heard a big Dutch immigrant population there. Wondered how a girl from GR ended up in the cornfields of Iowa!

I Would love to visit a CRC again, loved the liturgy as a child. I think the nearest is in Fulton, IL. Tim says it's about an hour and a half from here.


----------



## kvanlaan

See John, that's just my point. If it was still that way today, there would be no question of staying. BUt last time I checked, it wasn't...


----------



## DMcFadden

Thanks, Lynn, for a moving story!

You highlight my own cognitive dissonance. My church experience (as both parishioner and pastor) has been pretty affirming and supportive. However, the boundary-challenged "anything goes" attitude of the mainline morass was matched by the intrinsic failures of broad evangelicalism without any confessional boundaries either. Yet, surely the answer cannot be found in a church so insular and hidebound that it shuns a woman and her children! Since when is purity of doctrine to be purchased at the price of sincere love for the brethren? It is sooooo frustrating that we are often left with real world alternatives between doctrinally indifferent (yet affirming and emotionally sustaining) fellowships and those that are doctrinally precise, yet full of the sourness of pharisaical self righteousness. 

Oy veh!


----------



## Grace Alone

Welcome, Lynn. Your story is just heartbreaking.


----------



## R. Scott Clark

Lynn,

That story has been told many times. Sadly, in those cases, it was the triumph of a narrow, immigrant, reactionary, fearful, insular culture over the theology, piety, and practice of the catechism.

There have been entire novels and many short stories documenting the very sort of thing that you describe. Tragically, the catechism becomes implicated in all this, but to borrow from the NRA, the catechism doesn't hurt, people do. 

People could write and tell similar stories, however, about being excluded from ethnically German, or Swedish, or Norwegian, or Czech, or Korean congregations. 

The "right wing" of the Dutch Reformed churches (whether PR or URC or CanRC) has a serious duty to be sure that what we mediate to people is not our "Dutchness" or our ethnicity but Christ and his Word and the summary of the faith in the catechism.

I understand what it is to be a gentile grafted in. I'm a wild olive branch grafted into _onze volk_. Before that I ministered among the German Russians for a number of years. In Christ there is no male, female, Dutch, German, Korean, or whatever. The dividing wall has been broken down. 

That said, as John Muether's biography of Van Til illustrates, there were some great traditions in the old Dutch Reformed tradition. The table piety of the old Dutch Reformed faith was a blessing and, in Lynn's case, despite all the ugliness that went with it, God did bless that bible reading and prayer. The baptism did come to fruition, by the grace of God. We should pray that all the broken, baptized, wandering sheep "out there" also realize the promise of their baptism, _sola gratia_, _sola fide_, _solo Christo_, _sola Scriptura_.


----------



## Grymir

Thanks Y'all. Lynn looked at me and said "It's comforting to know I'm not alone." 

Her past is one of the miriad of reasons I choose her to be my wife. In my quest for a female Rush Limbaugh, I had never heard of the CRC. My conversion took place in Texas, a haven for Baptists and Libs. I always liked the Baptists because they were all scripture, and when I heard they kicked the libs out, I was like "Yeah!! You go!" When she told me about the CRC and what she believed and knew to be true, I was impressed beyond measure. I had in my mind the image of what a 'perfect' church should be from reading the Bible, and the CRC seemed to fit closer than anything I've heard about. They were serious about thier Bible and God. When she told me about Grand Rapids and the CRC, I wanted to grab her and go on a 'holy pilgrimage'!!


----------



## calgal

Lynn:

Your story is heartbreaking but sadly is not too surprising in this area we live in GR and my husband was raised CRC outside this area. We are not in a CRC for a variety of reasons: friendliness is one of the issues (I could cruise along under his last name and heritage but that really is disrespectful to both of us). There is good and bad in ethnic churches but there is hopefully a realization that "sticking with your own" is not exactly God's plan for churches. And hopefully Dr. Clark and others can learn from the parent denomination's major flaws and grow the URC into a healthier denomination (on all levels) than the CRC was.


----------



## KenPierce

Lynn,

No question of your experience: a typically Dutch experience, to be sure, and one of the reasons I am PCA, not CRC.

To cite an extreme case, consider Paul Schrader. One might consider his movie "Hardcore" (which I watched on regular cable so as not to see whatever lewd scenes there might be), as his take on his CRC upbringing. The famous scene in this regard is Geo C Scott as a prosperous CRC furniture maker trying to share his faith with a prostitute in the Las Vegas airport, and relating the five points of Calvinism!

That said, there have been some grand CRC ministers (Eppinga, Nederhood, etc), and some very fine CRC people. The CRC culture ("just a little bit better") is the problem.


----------



## JohnV

kvanlaan said:


> See John, that's just my point. If it was still that way today, there would be no question of staying. BUt last time I checked, it wasn't...



Kevin:

Lynn's story is so close to home for me too. I recognize so many of the characters that are in her story. The same happened in our church, in our neighboring CRC church, and in so many other churches. You're right, it isn't still like it used to be. It isn't at all like the rosy picture I drew. 

I don't think that this negates all the good things I knew of the CRC. I'm no longer CRC either, even though I live closer (within walking distance) of the church I grew up in. I live right next door to the original parsonage. I was talking about the many things that I respected of the CRC, and of which I still haven't found in other churches. It seems almost that what was taken for granted, what was so elementary to church teaching and practice, isn't known or heard of in other Reformed churches. I really lament losing those basics. But I think they are proper and right, Biblical and provable, and strive to see them instituted in any church that I am a part of. Where ever I go I would like to see the old CRC revived. So I'm really old CRC at heart and always will be. 

There are two CRC's, just like their visible and invisible church distinction teaches about the true church. There is that to which we strive, and there is the actual. The modern CRC has given up on the former altogether. I am sure that the most eminent professors of theology at Calvin Seminary no longer know the former defined distinction between visible and invisible church. That's been gone a long, long time. The church I am referring to is the invisible CRC, the one we tried so hard to be for ten or fifteen years. The visble CRC did everything to wipe out that image after those years, wipe out that direction, that goal. 

But going back to Lynn's testimony, I know my wife can tell you a story along the same lines too. Her best friend was in the same boat. And the church was not helpful. But together the two of us can tell you a story about how we were treated because we had eleven children. This is a church that champions the covenant, that makes teaching the young a priority, that insists on children going to a Christian school, and most of all, believes children are a blessing from God. In Bible discussions some had no problem at all in talking about their practice of birth control, but it was we who had eleven children who were the perverts, the ones addicted to sexual intercourse. It was so obviously gross and self-condemning, so immoral, and yet they were completely unapologetic about it. We found it to be no different in the FRC or the URC. 

There were many other experiences I could talk about. But none of this even touches that idea which my parents and others strove for when they started this local congregation. What we were taught in our catechism classes exceeds by far what the actual practice by weak men testifies to. 

Because of my catechism training I was able to stand alone against my grades 11 and 12 classmates, defending the Word of God against the idea that the Bible had been discredited in the areas of history and science. I was successful time after time, even though I was an average C student arrayed against A students. This High School had a five year program, but I went to work after grade 12. The A students who tried to defeat the Bible became Christians in grade 13, only a year later, and they came to me one by one to thank me for what I had shown them. And all I can say is that it was my catechism training that has to take the credit, not me. That's the Spirit working as the Reformed churches have always taught should be the case. 

I can't be part of the temporal CRC anymore, but I cannot be separated from the invisible CRC. The visible CRC gave up the invisible CRC, but I haven't. The modern CRC is at war with her original purpose. You can see that in the issues which resulted in the '92 split. It is not so much that they argued for and agreed to women in the offices, or caved when it came to Theistic Evolution, or inclusive language, or "homosexualism" (a word peculiar and original to the CRC), or the other issues; its what they willingly did to the Bible in order to accomplish these purposes. As little as twenty years before it would have been unthinkable, and yet in that short a time it became unthinking and easy. 

Looking back on it today you have to wonder how or why anyone would believe those arguments back then. But its because stories like the one Lynn tells were all too common and familiar to all of us. Not everyone shared the same goals, and in the end the ones with high ideals lost out to the ones with low ideals, to the ones who let their prejudices rule their sense of community. 

I'm not commending staying in the CRC. I would be very careful about leaving it, though. You don't know what's out there, and I can tell that you're likely in for a lot of heartbreak if you think its better elsewhere. You have to go church by church, not denomination by denomination. And give it lots of time so that you can find out what a church is really all about, not just what they say they're about. Its hard, Kevin, but its no less hard the other way.


----------



## JohnV

R. Scott Clark said:


> Lynn,
> 
> I understand what it is to be a gentile grafted in. I'm a wild olive branch grafted into _onze volk_. Before that I ministered among the German Russians for a number of years. In Christ there is no male, female, Dutch, German, Korean, or whatever. The dividing wall has been broken down.



And I had the idea that Clark was a good Friesian name.


----------



## calgal

JohnV said:


> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lynn,
> 
> I understand what it is to be a gentile grafted in. I'm a wild olive branch grafted into _onze volk_. Before that I ministered among the German Russians for a number of years. In Christ there is no male, female, Dutch, German, Korean, or whatever. The dividing wall has been broken down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I had the idea that Clark was a good Friesian name.
Click to expand...


Isn't Vandervliet..... Belgian?


----------



## Grymir

Hi Y'all, My beloved wife asked me to post this -

Asking beloved husband to post for me again....

Thank you all for your kind words. I am finding myself greatly comforted, feeling somehow that a great burden has been lifted from me.

I would that no one would have to ever experience such treatment from any of God's people. Period.

Although I have intellectually known for years that it wasn't personal, the emotional part has somewhat lingered.

The hurt I have felt for my Dad over the years has been intense. To voluntarily separate himself from his family, culture and traditions must have been immensely difficult for him.

He did what he thought was best to protect his wife and children, at great sacrifice to himself and his own well being.

He did keep up with denominational happenings for awhile, reading the magazines, synod publications, etc. Railing about women in office, bemoaning the breakdown and liberalization of the denomination of his heritage, even if not attending.

There are many things about the CRC that make me smile when remembering even today.

The majesty of their liturgy (as seen through the eyes of a 9 yr old girl) compared to the looser, more relaxed, more freewheeling, somewhat informal style of the typical Baptist churches of my childhood.

The beautiful church, many gorgeous windows. Huge, too. The sound of the congregation singing with the monster pipe organ. You could FEEL the notes as the people sang in unison.

At least during the worship services, no snide glances were seen, no unkind words were said to us. In my child's mind, surely this was what worship was going to be like in heaven!

The piety of the Lord's Table, as Dr. Clark so aptly stated. I found myself nodding my head vigorously at his post. Thank you, sir. I emphatically agree with every single word.

In later times, during bad stretches of my life that were of my own making, the Lord graciously brought to my remembrance both Scriptures and stretches of the HC to keep me anchored in the truths of my faith.

To re-iterate, I would visit a CRC again in a heartbeat, if one were nearby. Although I doubt I would ever seek to join one, as they have drifted too far for me to be comfortable.

As for the PCUSA, husband says that's where we go, so that's it. I respect his authority in this matter. Way too feminist, and egalitarian, but until he's ready to leave, there we shall be. I have some experience in a church full of folks that don't necessarily practice what they say they believe...LOL!!!

Lynn Johnson


----------



## kvanlaan

> It seems almost that what was taken for granted, what was so elementary to church teaching and practice, isn't known or heard of in other Reformed churches. I really lament losing those basics. But I think they are proper and right, Biblical and provable, and strive to see them instituted in any church that I am a part of. Where ever I go I would like to see the old CRC revived. So I'm really old CRC at heart and always will be.



That's the problem - I _*LOVE*_ what _was_ and am shocked by what _is_. My father and I finally had a non-emotional conversation about this topic and I see some wisdom in the advice to "be careful about staying and careful about leaving". None of my children are yet baptized and before too long, I will have to decide where they will receive their baptism. My present church (CRC) is full of people who have been praying for my family for ten years. But coming back and sitting in the pews has been quite a shocking revelation. I love the people there but see so many changes that I have difficult in stomaching, I can hardly stand it. But to turn my back on those who have been praying for us for so long is hardly the Christian thing to do. I have been swimming upstream for a decade in China and am weary of the battle. But as I told my father tonight, I would rather sit in a different church now than across the table from him in a schism a few years down the road. He says get in council, make changes. But I am only 34 and hardly elder material - I am experiencing much inner turmoil over this.

Sorry to hijack (sort of), but I appreciate what I have read and am reading.


----------



## Scott1

I do not have direct experience with the CRC or the HC. However, I am aware the HC is a faithful expression of reformed theology, in general agreement with other historic confessions such as the Westminster Confession.



> Leslie
> Puritanboard Sophomore
> 
> I have no problem in having the confessions. I have a few differences but nothing much and I expressed these when joining the PB.
> 
> The problem is one of emphasis.



The Confession (and Catechisms) themselves teach that they are not infallible. They state that they are "subject to" the Scripture's authority. *They represent themselves to be a faithful summary of the doctrine contained in Holy Scripture.*

In the Westminster Standards, every single proposition and statement is footnoted by Scripture. The Scripture "proof texts" appear right below the Confession Statement. The Scripture proof texts are often longer than the Confession Statement they support.

The Confession and Catechism are a great aid in furthering the peace, purity and unity of the church by providing a standard of biblical understanding of the whole of Scripture. This is especially helpful to new believers who do not have a grasp of what (the whole of) Scripture teaches.

Practically, the Confessions are used to provoke Bible study, first the "proof texts" then the greater context of the "proof texts" and then to search out Scripture generally on the doctrine. They are a support to, not a replacement of Scripture.

In a generation where many are falling away from Scripture, they are also falling away from the Confessions (because they neither value nor understand either).


----------



## JohnV

Kevin:

Why not be that straight up with your calling church too? Don't give emotional answers to their questions, but just straight forward. They aren't the church that sent you; you're coming home to a different church; why not make that plain to them? If they decide that you don't belong, then you have your answer. And if they realize you're right, and want your presence there to help rebuild the church, then you'll know that you belong there. Either way, its the Spirit that will tell you.


----------



## JohnV

calgal said:


> JohnV said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> R. Scott Clark said:
> 
> 
> 
> Lynn,
> 
> I understand what it is to be a gentile grafted in. I'm a wild olive branch grafted into _onze volk_. Before that I ministered among the German Russians for a number of years. In Christ there is no male, female, Dutch, German, Korean, or whatever. The dividing wall has been broken down.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I had the idea that Clark was a good Friesian name.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Isn't Vandervliet..... Belgian?
Click to expand...


Actually its a very computer-aged name. Everything is streamed nowadays, and my name means "from the stream". So there!


----------



## kvanlaan

John, I think that is what it is going to be - I told my father tonight that I have to sit down with the pastor and talk about this issue. Another factor is that the pastor here is a little more mainstream than anything I've seen written thus far. He's my age, eschews any sort of greeting that includes Revernd/Dominee and a last name, and the services have a much more interdenominational feel to them. A couple of weeks ago, you wouldn't have known that you were in a Reformed church at all. A praise team and sermon anecdotes were the order of the day. I just don't know which way to turn in this, but I truly value your advice thus far.


----------



## JohnV

You have my prayers too, Kevin. I used to know your uncle Abe, and so I tend to feel that I know you a bit too. I know what you're up against and the struggles you're going through. I'll be praying for you and your family.


----------



## kvanlaan

> Isn't Vandervliet..... *Belgian*?



Whoa! Gail, that's hitting below the belt (and on the Sabbath, no less - have you no shame?!?!) And you a Boer! Tut, tut...


----------



## calgal

kvanlaan said:


> Isn't Vandervliet..... *Belgian*?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Whoa! Gail, that's hitting below the belt (and on the Sabbath, no less - have you no shame?!?!) And you a Boer! Tut, tut...
Click to expand...


You DID note that I was not born Dutch but married into it.... Belgians make excellent chocolate and beer......

Sorry John!


----------



## JohnV

No offence taken, Gail. After all, if you ain't Dutch..., well, you know the rest.  But I took it be a reference to the chocolate and the Beer. What else could you have meant, right?


----------



## kvanlaan

> You DID note that I was not born Dutch but married into it....



Ah, that explains it then.



> Belgians make excellent chocolate and beer......



That may be, but they still wake up every morning as non-Dutchmen.


----------



## kvanlaan

> I used to know your uncle Abe



It must have been my father's uncle - I don't have an uncle Abe (but my Dad has so many uncles and aunts that I don't think he could name them all in one go).


----------



## calgal

JohnV said:


> No offence taken, Gail. After all, if you ain't Dutch..., well, you know the rest.  But I took it be a reference to the chocolate and the Beer. What else could you have meant, right?



Of course I meant to imply the best chocolate and




beer


----------



## calgal

kvanlaan said:


> You DID note that I was not born Dutch but married into it....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ah, that explains it then.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Belgians make excellent chocolate and beer......
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That may be, but they still wake up every morning as non-Dutchmen.
Click to expand...


Are you sure you aren't about six years older and did not go to Calvin with my husband? You sound like one of his old roommates..... then again all you Dutch folks sound alike.....


----------



## kvanlaan

> Are you sure you aren't about six years older and did not go to Calvin with my husband?
> 
> You sound like one of his old roommates..... then again all you Dutch folks sound alike.....



Nope, I went to Oklahoma Baptist University in the Southern Baptist heartland. Yeehaw!

We _do_ all sound alike - it's wonderful, isn't it?


----------



## calgal

kvanlaan said:


> Are you sure you aren't about six years older and did not go to Calvin with my husband?
> 
> You sound like one of his old roommates..... then again all you Dutch folks sound alike.....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, I went to Oklahoma Baptist University in the Southern Baptist heartland. Yeehaw!
> 
> We _do_ all sound alike - it's wonderful, isn't it?
Click to expand...


 Rebel! Yeah that dry sense of humor is impressive. Now I can't quite fathom the zombie movie fascination but I have never attended a Classis meeting either.....


----------



## R. Scott Clark

JohnV said:


> And I had the idea that Clark was a good Friesian name.



The Dutch would be de Klerk. The Friesian would be Clerksma or Clerkenga.


----------



## JohnV

R. Scott Clark said:


> JohnV said:
> 
> 
> 
> And I had the idea that Clark was a good Friesian name.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Dutch would be de Klerk. The Friesian would be Clerksma or Clerkenga.
Click to expand...


Let me see: Errr, (rolling the "r") Scotje De Klerk. Yep, sounds Dutch to me. 

Well, you can imagine my surprise when I found out that Abraham wasn't a Dutch name. It sounded so Dutch when my Grandfather used to pronounce it. There's Aahbrahaahm, and Daahvid, and so on. I couldn't really get the hang of the Dutch name for Acts, though. That sounded so unBiblical. Handelingen? Oh well.


----------



## kvanlaan

...or Clerkstra.


----------



## Grymir

..or Clarkski...oh yeah, they lived on the other side of the river in Grand Rapids.


----------



## KenPierce

We lived on the West Side for 2 glorious years after we were married, and I interned at 7th Reformed under J.R. de Witt. In the midst of Poles and Lithuanians (we often walked in the Lithuanian cemetery), there were, at one time 2 RCA and no less than 5 CRC churches in about 10 square miles! 2 of the CRCs have closed, including one which was, at one time, the largest in the denomination, Alpine Avenue.


----------



## JohnV

I wasn't trying to imply that if you're Dutch then Presumptive Regeneration kicks in. I was trying to hint at the fact that my fathers in the Reformed faith were indoctrinated in the rich high Dutch church language, and sometimes it just doesn't translate well. I sometimes got the notion in my head that the Dutch name for the book of Acts meant "manual labour". It just sounded like that to someone not appreciating the language as much as my fathers did. 

As I said, most if not all the elders of our church had no more than a high-school education. They came here knowing the high Dutch church language and all the doctrines in that language. But here in Canada they had to quickly adapt to the English language. Some of the things they had taken for granted suddenly became hard to explain to the new generation of English-speaking youth. And they were often not sufficiently equipped for that. 

I recall one family visit when my father tried to get the elders to talk to us in English so we could understand. He tried, but he couldn't do it. They could talk English a little, but did not know the right words to translate the right questions into our language. We were learning everything in English, in school and in catechism and in church services. Some elders had a very hard time with that change. What used to take merely saying it in Dutch, because the words themselves had so much meaning and heritage behind them, now required the very hard task of explaining it in English which didn't have that richness. 

Its not as though they didn't try; its more that they had so many things to contend with at the same time. They had to build a living for themselves, they suddenly had a 50's and 60's set of young people to deal with, they tried to build Christian schools, and they were trying to learn the doctrines of the church in the English language to the same depth they had learned in the Dutch. Looking back I would think it was quite overwhelming for them.


----------



## Classical Presbyterian

Man, am I sorry to hear that the CRC is heading into trouble...

I was hoping that they may have been a possible refuge for those of us in the sunk PCUSA that are longing for a Reformed home.

Too bad!


----------

