Church discipline (averted)

[JLB]

Hello all,

I attend a church plant that is part of the Canrc, and I have a friend who found out that a fellow member is engaged in a very anti-biblical line of work in the university in which employed. This line of work is in direct opposition to the word of God and contributes to children mutilating themselves.

I don't want to say much more, but I'm very discouraged that leadership is overlooking this. My friend has withdrawn his membership and I find myself at an impasse so I'm looking for advise.

All I've done up to this point is talk to my elder (last week). I haven't talked to him since I found out they are turning a blind eye to his work.

There is only one other reformed Church in my area and that's the liberal Christian Reformed Church. If I leave this church where would I worship?

Thanks in advance.

 

[DanSSwing]

10 years ago, I attended a CRC church that was conservative. Are you sure that this particular body is liberal?

 

[MyCrows]

Maybe talk to more than the one elder. Perhaps another elder is less informed about the matter, and isn't so much overlooking as we might think.

 

[arapahoepark]

If he has withdrawn membership what can you do?
If the session as a whole is unbiblically overlooking it and has no problem with members engaging in sinful vocations, can't you file a complaint with the presbytery?

 

[PaulCLawton]

Hello all,

I attend a church plant that is part of the Canrc, and I have a friend who found out that a fellow member is engaged in a very anti-biblical line of work in the university in which employed. This line of work is in direct opposition to the word of God and contributes to children mutilating themselves.

I don't want to say much more, but I'm very discouraged that leadership is overlooking this. My friend has withdrawn his membership and I find myself at an impasse so I'm looking for advise.

All I've done up to this point is talk to my elder (last week). I haven't talked to him since I found out they are turning a blind eye to his work.

There is only one other reformed Church in my area and that's the liberal Christian Reformed Church. If I leave this church where would I worship?

Thanks in advance.

1. You should likely speak to the member himself first (see the CanRC CO article 66)
2. If that fails to bring repentence, write a letter to your consistory outlining your concern (Art 67)
3. If step #2 also fails, you may ask for the help of the Church Visitors (CO 46) and/or appeal to Classis (CO 31)

 

[JLB]

1. You should likely speak to the member himself first (see the CanRC CO article 66)
2. If that fails to bring repentence, write a letter to your consistory outlining your concern (Art 67)
3. If step #2 also fails, you may ask for the help of the Church Visitors (CO 46) and/or appeal to Classis (CO 31)

Step 1 and 2 were done by said (former) member.

Where I'm getting hung up is if I'd I have to do steps 1 and 2, since I know what the answer will be. I'm wondering if I should go straight to classis (after alerting the church)?

CO wasn't followed by the accused and this was excused due to the mental health of the assused; I have talked to my elder about this and he said "you don't break a bruised reed". I don't understand how you can apply not breaking a bruised reed using the outline given in Matt 18 because of "feelings".

Should I follow CO knowing that I will not get anywhere and that an appeal will more than likely have to be made to classis?

 

[JLB]

If he has withdrawn membership what can you do?
If the session as a whole is unbiblically overlooking it and has no problem with members engaging in sinful vocations, can't you file a complaint with the presbytery?

This is what I'm debating, but I'm wondering if I have to follow church order.

 

[JLB]

Maybe talk to more than the one elder. Perhaps another elder is less informed about the matter, and isn't so much overlooking as we might think.

Consistory has looked into this and has decided to not pursue anything. Everyone in leadership knows.

 

[JLB]

10 years ago, I attended a CRC church that was conservative. Are you sure that this particular body is liberal?

I should clarify and say that not all CRC are liberal, but LGBTQ acceptance has crept into the federation - I believe a homosexual in a homosexual "marriage" has been elected decaon. It can be searched on their website.

 

[Charles Johnson]

The session would be wise to admonish a professing adherent engaged in unrepentant sin, but if this person is not a member, and is not partaking of the supper, they've essentially excommunicated themselves, which is the action the session would take, so what else would you expect them to do? This is not something I would, or would even consider, leaving a church over. Churches are left because they have forsaken the gospel, not minor disagreements on the best way to handle disciplinary issues.

 

[Guido's Brother]

Hi Jason,

Former CanRC pastor here (now FRCA). I'd recommend writing a letter to your consistory about it, if it's a public matter. Insist on a written response. After a couple of rounds of back and forth, if they don't back down, then, yes, you ought to bring the matter forward to a classis for their judgment. If you go this route, make sure you get some help in preparing your submission. In our church polity, it's very easy to have submissions rejected on technical grounds.

But please don't walk away just yet. Let the process do its work. I know of other situations in the CanRC where ordinary members raised the alarm about certain issues with their consistory and they were vindicated. It's not a perfect system, but it usually does work.

 

[JLB]

The session would be wise to admonish a professing adherent engaged in unrepentant sin, but if this person is not a member, and is not partaking of the supper, they've essentially excommunicated themselves, which is the action the session would take, so what else would you expect them to do? This is not something I would, or would even consider, leaving a church over. Churches are left because they have forsaken the gospel, not minor disagreements on the best way to handle disciplinary issues.

This person is a member.

I get what you're saying and I wouldn't consider leaving if we're just a minor disagreement.

If what this person says and does in his line of work contradicts scripture, but he doesn't bring it to church (his words, as if it makes it ok), then this goes beyond a minor disagreement on a disciplinary issue - this comes down to leadership saying it's ok to actively believe and teach things that are not true and has become a stumbling block for the youth of this nation. We are all sinners, but this is unrepentant behavior and is what you'd expect to find in United Churches that affirms depraved behavior.

 

[JLB]

Hi Jason,

Former CanRC pastor here (now FRCA). I'd recommend writing a letter to your consistory about it, if it's a public matter. Insist on a written response. After a couple of rounds of back and forth, if they don't back down, then, yes, you ought to bring the matter forward to a classis for their judgment. If you go this route, make sure you get some help in preparing your submission. In our church polity, it's very easy to have submissions rejected on technical grounds.

But please don't walk away just yet. Let the process do its work. I know of other situations in the CanRC where ordinary members raised the alarm about certain issues with their consistory and they were vindicated. It's not a perfect system, but it usually does work.

What would you consider "public"? Im not sure the whole congregation knows, though I'm aware that at least one other family knows. There could be more, but I can't say for certainty.

 

[Guido's Brother]

What would you consider "public"? Im not sure the whole congregation knows, though I'm aware that at least one other family knows. There could be more, but I can't say for certainty.

Public would be if everyone in the congregation could reasonably be expected to know. If it's not, then Matthew 18 is the route that needs to be followed. If it's not public, any consistory would turn you away if you hadn't followed Matthew 18.

 

[PaulCLawton]

Step 1 and 2 were done by said (former) member.

Where I'm getting hung up is if I'd I have to do steps 1 and 2, since I know what the answer will be. I'm wondering if I should go straight to classis (after alerting the church)?

CO wasn't followed by the accused and this was excused due to the mental health of the assused; I have talked to my elder about this and he said "you don't break a bruised reed". I don't understand how you can apply not breaking a bruised reed using the outline given in Matt 18 because of "feelings".

Should I follow CO knowing that I will not get anywhere and that an appeal will more than likely have to be made to classis?

Start with step 2, you will have no standing whatsoever at classis without written correspondence intitiated by you, not your friend.

 

[DanSSwing]

I should clarify and say that not all CRC are liberal, but LGBTQ acceptance has crept into the federation - I believe a homosexual in a homosexual "marriage" has been elected decaon. It can be searched on their website.

Wow. That's bad. Pretty safe to rule that one out.

 

[retroGRAD3]

I mean, if this person's line of work is mutilating children and they don't think there is an issue with it, then it is likely they are not a Christian at all. I would absolute pursue this manner in the ways being suggested above.

 

[JLB]

I mean, if this person's line of work is mutilating children and they don't think there is an issue with it, then it is likely they are not a Christian at all. I would absolute pursue this manner in the ways being suggested above.

He doesn't directly mutilate children but instead teach an ideology that relates to it. It's the typical lies and idealogy being posited in a lot of universities that are leading many astray.

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

He doesn't directly mutilate children but instead teach an ideology that relates to it. It's the typical lies and idealogy being posited in a lot of universities that are leading many astray.

So his sin is openly teaching doctrines against the Church's beliefs? If so, it sounds like his leaders need to deal with that.

 

[retroGRAD3]

He doesn't directly mutilate children but instead teach an ideology that relates to it. It's the typical lies and idealogy being posited in a lot of universities that are leading many astray.

Ideologies often lead to the act. I feel it is essentially handing the gun to the person and saying you could use this to kill someone. Yes, the person that does it is guilty of murder, but the person who handed them the gun it also part of it. Ideologies, I would say, are the primary reason we are where we are in this country (the surface reason, sin being the true reason).

 

[Ryan&Amber2013]

Ideologies often lead to the act. I feel it is essentially handing the gun to the person and saying you could use this to kill someone. Yes, the person that does it is guilty of murder, but the person who handed them the gun it also part of it. Ideologies, I would say, are the primary reason we are where we are in this country (the surface reason, sin being the true reason).

So true. It's crazy how much destruction Darwinism has caused, from Hitler to abortion and eugenics, etc. Ideas have consequences.

 

[JLB]

So his sin is openly teaching doctrines against the Church's beliefs? If so, it sounds like his leaders need to deal with that.

I'm just going to say what he teaches and advocates and has written on to avoid any confusion: queer theory. He's also an advocate for CRT.

Leadership says they have had his work reviewed by an "academic" and it's fine and it's good to have Christians in this field. My elder has told my friend that the accused is like a "Narco". This is ridiculous and is like saying I'm doing the work of a narco in planned parenthood.

What I want to ask leadership and the accused is how this comports with the Bible.

 

[JLB]

Ideologies often lead to the act. I feel it is essentially handing the gun to the person and saying you could use this to kill someone. Yes, the person that does it is guilty of murder, but the person who handed them the gun it also part of it. Ideologies, I would say, are the primary reason we are where we are in this country (the surface reason, sin being the true reason).

Agreed.

 

[retroGRAD3]

I'm just going to say what he teaches and advocates and has written on to avoid any confusion: queer theory. He's also an advocate for CRT.

Both of those things are of Satan.

Leadership says they have had his work reviewed by an "academic" and it's fine and it's good to have Christians in this field.

This sounds like radical two kingdoms stuff. My opinion is it absolutely not fine and good. If you advocate for things that God hates, namely sodomy and CRT, that is sin.

My elder has told my friend that the accused is like a "Narco". This is ridiculous and is like saying I'm doing the work of a narco in planned parenthood.

What I want to ask leadership and the accused is how this comports with the Bible.

Indeed.

 

[Guido's Brother]

I'm just going to say what he teaches and advocates and has written on to avoid any confusion: queer theory. He's also an advocate for CRT.

Leadership says they have had his work reviewed by an "academic" and it's fine and it's good to have Christians in this field. My elder has told my friend that the accused is like a "Narco". This is ridiculous and is like saying I'm doing the work of a narco in planned parenthood.

What I want to ask leadership and the accused is how this comports with the Bible.

A few years ago I was part of an effort to address the teaching of theistic evolution in the Canadian Reformed Churches. We made a proposal to change article 14 of the Belgic Confession. Part of the proposal endeavoured to prove that there's a need for such a change. So we quoted a couple of academics within the CanRC. It got through classis, but faltered at regional synod and beyond. Reason: they said we didn't privately address the academics involved before quoting them (even though there were many public online conversations about the issues). The academics involved therefore could claim that they were misrepresented. Take that for what it's worth. The Canadian Reformed Churches are still Canadian -- they want to be nice and brotherly.

 

[JLB]

A few years ago I was part of an effort to address the teaching of theistic evolution in the Canadian Reformed Churches. We made a proposal to change article 14 of the Belgic Confession. Part of the proposal endeavoured to prove that there's a need for such a change. So we quoted a couple of academics within the CanRC. It got through classis, but faltered at regional synod and beyond. Reason: they said we didn't privately address the academics involved before quoting them (even though there were many public online conversations about the issues). The academics involved therefore could claim that they were misrepresented. Take that for what it's worth. The Canadian Reformed Churches are still Canadian -- they want to be nice and brotherly.

Can you clarify - were you proposing to teach the validity of theistic evolution or against it?

I'd be curious to know when academics are consulted what's the standard by which everyone measures against?

Thanks!

 

[Guido's Brother]

Can you clarify - were you proposing to teach the validity of theistic evolution or against it?

I'd be curious to know when academics are consulted what's the standard by which everyone measures against?

Thanks!

Very much against theistic evolution. Personally, I think an academic's own published papers or lectures should be enough to make a judgment. If an academic can't be clear in his or her writings or lectures, they have no business in that field. But that was not the dominant sentiment at the broader assemblies in 2014/2015 when this matter was dealt with. They thought the academics got a raw deal because our church didn't interact with them personally.

 

[JLB]

Thanks. I agree that his or hers papers should be enough to make a judgment.

What I'm getting at is what the academic writes, measured against the standard of scripture and what has been orthodox Christianity? For example a theistic evolutionist could claim to appeal to dating methods to try to prove his stance on an old earth and could cite numerous other sources, Christian or not, to hammer home his point as true. Yet if we take a plain reading of scripture, not to mention death having to reign before the fall, we would have to oppose theistic evolution as unbiblical.
An academic can wave around his credentials, but if his foundation isn't scripture then he has knowledge, but knows nothing.
This is what I'm thinking with the person the queer theorist in my midst and him having academic support. What Christian can support queer theory?

 

[sgemmen9]

Hello all,

I attend a church plant that is part of the Canrc, and I have a friend who found out that a fellow member is engaged in a very anti-biblical line of work in the university in which employed. This line of work is in direct opposition to the word of God and contributes to children mutilating themselves.

I don't want to say much more, but I'm very discouraged that leadership is overlooking this. My friend has withdrawn his membership and I find myself at an impasse so I'm looking for advise.

All I've done up to this point is talk to my elder (last week). I haven't talked to him since I found out they are turning a blind eye to his work.

There is only one other reformed Church in my area and that's the liberal Christian Reformed Church. If I leave this church where would I worship?

Thanks in advance.

CRC Pastor here -- I totally see why you might not be able to find a CRC that is faithful to God's Word and your conscience. Is there another CRC, NAPARC congregation, or Bible believing congregation within driving distance? I assume if you google around you should be able to find something. If not Reformed hopefully at least something that teaches the Bible faithfully.

 

[JLB]

CRC Pastor here -- I totally see why you might not be able to find a CRC that is faithful to God's Word and your conscience. Is there another CRC, NAPARC congregation, or Bible believing congregation within driving distance? I assume if you google around you should be able to find something. If not Reformed hopefully at least something that teaches the Bible faithfully.

The closest for a reformed Church would be around 2.5 hours. Thats a doable drive but I think my marriage would suffer even more than it is because of my faith. But that's a whole other story.

I was considering one of the local Lutheran Churches, whose synod is very conservative. I can appreciate the liturgy and weekly taking of the Lord's supper, but I struggle with it being against the regulative principal. However if I attend any church that isn't reformed there is going to be a multitude of things that go against reformed worship and doctrines.