Credo ↔ Oratio

The Reformed Church in America traces its history in North America back 1628. We are the oldest continuous denomination on the continent, and yet in that time we have never adopted a new confession.

It is no small thing, then, that for the first time ever, we are going through the process of potentially adopting a new confession – the Belhar Confession. You see, the RCA is a confessional denomination. We currently have three standards of unity (the Heidelberg Catechism, the Belgic Confession, and the Canons of the Synod of Dort). We also confess three creeds (the Apostles’ Creed, the Nicene Creed, and the Athanasian Creed).

That sad reality is that, despite our confessional identity, there seems to be very little understanding of what it means to be such a body. Many believe the RCA is, like most pentecostal or baptist churches, a “no creed but Christ” denomination or a merely sola scriptura entity. We are not. Every minister in the RCA, alongside affirming the “Word of God as the only rule for faith and life,” also confirms that they hold our confessional documents to be “historic and faithful witnesses to the Word of God” (Declaration for Ministers of Word and Sacrament).

As far as I know, there is no “industry standard” as to how these statements are to be interpreted. In other words, there is no universal understanding of what it means to be confessional Christians. Some of my colleagues read the Declaration with a heavy emphasis on “historic and faithful witnesses….” Others clearly confess that the standards are “historic and faithful witnesses….” I tend toward the latter… many of my friends toward the former.

So, what does it mean to be confessional Christians? What are “confessions?” What is their authority? How are they related to the scriptures?

Here’s what I think:

I believe the confessions are documents from specific historic times and places. They were originally written to specific people in specific contexts. Unlike many theological documents, however, the creeds and confessions speak outside of their original context. While their authority is not equal to that of the scriptures, as with scriptures, a solid understanding of their original context(s) enables us to appropriately embrace them into our own time and place.

The confessions, while always subservient to the Bible, provide accurate and faithful distillations of the gospel. They offer us with the essential touch points of the Christian faith. These documents help us understand what is most important and give us a solid paradigm within which to interpret the parts of the Bible that are unclear or difficult to understand.

All of this helps explain why I believe the RCA should adopt the Belhar Confession.

Unlike some of my colleagues, I do believe the Belhar’s affirmation of God’s preferential option for the poor. I do believe that a faith which proclaims unity, justice and reconciliation but fails to live them, is no faith at all. If God stands with the “least of these” and all who suffer (and I believe God does!) then God’s people must as well. Failure to do so reveals us as Christian-like, rather than truly Christian.

In many ways, our current confessions handle Paul’s writings well, but they fail to adequately express the life and ministry that Jesus lived and taught. The Belhar helps rectify that.

The next two and a half months will show whether or not the RCA is ready to embrace the aspects of the scriptures that the Belhar lifts up as essential. I couldn’t be more pleased that Zeeland Classis and the other 5 who have currently voted on the issue have followed General Synod’s example and voted to embrace the Belhar.

I hope and dream for a world where Christians confess and live into the realities of unity, reconciliation and justice. This is, I believe, a small – but very important – step in that direction!

Grace and Peace,

`tim

Ok… Here’s the ax I’m grinding. I keep running into Christians who are angry about the use of the “Holiday Season” or “Happy Holidays” rather than saying “Merry Christmas” – which, they insist, is a more “Christ-centered” wish.

Fine, I’ll admit that the word “Christmas” actually includes the word “Christ,” and so at some level, not using the word “Christmas” actually does stop using a word with “Christ” in it… on the other hand, “Holidays” merely means “Holy + Days,” and that is most certainly appropriate for Christians!

Here’s why I think Christians should use the phrase “Happy Holidays:”

it refers to a time in our yearly cycle in which several holidays take place.

“Merry Christmas” ignores Thanksgiving; it ignores St. Nicholas’ Day (a big one in my family); it ignores Old/New Years’ celebrations, and it ignores Epiphany (a far more ancient holiday for Christians than Christmas). Equally as problematic, most people say “Merry Christmas” during the Advent season, not during the Christmas season.

“Happy Holidays” is a far more inclusive wish for one another; it is far more seasonally encompassing, and it is liturgically appropriate for all of the involved seasons.

On top of that, I’d suggest that we use the phrase the “Holidays’ Seasons” instead of the “holiday season;” it is, after all, several seasons of the Christian year.

Referring to the “holidays” doesn’t secularize the Christmas (we’ve done an stand-up job of doing that regardless of what verbiage we prefer); perhaps, indeed, it could help us recapture the real MeaningS of the SeasonS.

Grace and peace,
`tim

Of the many things a minister does with his or her time, the one we are most often judged on is our presence in the pulpit and/or time spent leading worship. That makes sense, of course, since most of what we do is either in small groups or with individuals, and worship services are one of the few things that even the least-involved and least-connected people in a congregation still occasionally attend.

There are a variety of ways ministers and congregations tend to imagine a pastor’s job description…

There is a sense of truth to each of these views (and several others). Lately, however, I’ve been struck with the image of “conductor” or “facilitator” – particularly within the context of worship. Why? Because the biggest failure each of the above-mentioned positions tends to promote (with the possible exception of the fourth) is that, at a very basic level, they tend to imagine the minister as the primary do-er of ministry in the congregation. Something that, as far as I can see, has absolutely no biblically backing whatsoever.

If the minister is the primary do-er, then the minister’s role is to be the primary worship-er… the primary pray-er… the primary engage-r of the scriptures. If, on the other hand, the pastor’s role is that of “conductor” or “facilitator,” the s/he is charged with helping those on the other side of the pulpit and communion table to worship… and pray… and engage the scriptures.

That doesn’t mean that a minister isn’t worshiping and praying and engaging the scriptures as an individual (and as part of the body). Indeed, in a very real sense, s/he ought to have a certain expertise, experience, and training in exactly those things (as the Reformed tradition has consistently, albeit decreasingly, demanded). However, conducting a choir is a very different thing than singing in one (although most conductors can and have sung under the leadership of other conductors). A facilitator’s role, rather than trying to get a group to come to a particular conclusion, is to help the group discern a particular direction (often even something very different than the facilitator would have individually concocted.)

Pull the image over into ministry and all sorts of light bulbs begin going off in the thought-bubbles over our heads. A minister’s role is to bring together the body of God’s people and help them unite together in worship and prayer… to help bring them to the point where they are individually and communally engaging the scriptures.

What use is it if a minister gets in front of a congregation on Sunday morning to worship on their behalf… and pray on their behalf… and engage the scriptures on their behalf?

My answer: None!

I can do all of those things in the privacy of my own office or living room without the bother and distraction of a congregation watching me. If, on the other hand, a congregation gathers together each week (or even, dare I suggest it, more often!) and joins together to do each of these things as a gathered body, then something far greater is taking place. A minister, in this sense, is charged with making sure the congregation joins (metaphorically, if not literally) in on the same song… the same verse… the same words; a pastor is to help pull together the dozens of diverse and sometimes divergent souls and help weave them – even if for a short time – into a single tapestry of worship, prayer and word.

The problem? This view of ministry doesn’t give the pastor great power and prestige (which, in my experience, many ministers want and are hesitant to give up) and it doesn’t give congregations the ability to sit back and simply let it happen around them (which, in my experience, many congregations have become quite used to and are hesitant to change).

Those two problems alone (not counting the fact that minister-as-primary-do-er is an entirely unbiblical concept) are enough to ensure that minister-as-conductor or pastor-as-facilitator aren’t frequently-embraced images – from either side of the pulpit!

I wonder what it would take to change that?!

Grace and Peace,
`tim

Yes, I’m a slow bike rider. Slow enough, in fact, that those I’ve ridden Ragbrai with over the past two years have occasionally referred to my biking style as “tortoise pace.” It’s true, actually and I don’t mind at all. Indeed, last year I decided I would ride SLOWER than the year before, and this year it looks quite likely that I will ride even slower yet. Any real biker would be ashamed of that. Not me. Ragbrai isn’t a race; it’s more like a family reunion or a county fair. So this year I decided to embrace my pace and celebrate it.

How? You might ask… I ordered bracelets. Blue… glow in the dark… silicone with a trendy little tortoise and my new motto: …the slower the better!

They just arrived, and I know, you’re jealous. I ordered enough to share though; all you have to do is ride a little tortoise pace and I might even give you one!

1 week….

Grace and Peace,
`tim

PS. Interested in ordering your own bracelets for something? The company I went through was great: http://www.wristbandsnow.com/

As I began thinking about what I would do if given the opportunity to vote on the Belhar, I spent a lot of time thinking about what a “confession” is. Of course, there are a lot of ways to define a confession, and I wasn’t a delegate at Synod, so however I would have voted is entirely irrelevant. However, the question I kept coming back to was the question of context.

It sounds awful, but bear with me. One of the beautiful things about the scriptures is that they can be used outside of their original context. That doesn’t mean that all out of context interpretations are appropriate, but it does suggest that some out of context interpretations are. I don’t think that’s even remotely controversial. Obviously we live in a completely different context than those the scriptures were written in. If we are to believe that they still speak to us and make God’s will known to us, we have to believe that it’s possible to apply them, in some way, outside of their original context.

The standards are obviously not scripture; they do not hold the authority of scripture; they are not inspired in the same way as the scriptures. That said, one of the beauties of the standards is that they too, in some ways, can be interpreted and applied outside of their original context. Ministers in the RCA affirm that they are “historic” and “faithful” expressions of God’s will. “Historic” means that they have an original context different from our own; “faithful” suggests that they, to some degree can be interpreted outside of that original context.

As I’ve thought about the Belhar, then, I’ve found myself wondering which of two, very different, categories it fits in: (1) is it a powerful document bound to it’s original time and context (and thus not suitable as a confession), or (2) is it a powerful document able to speak in some way outside it’s original time and context (and thus appropriate for adoption as a confession).

In the end, I believe it’s the latter. Which means, of course, that I believe the Synod made a wise and discerning decision in approving it, and celebrate that the years of study have led us to this place.

Certainly some applications outside of South African apartheid are appropriate, certainly others aren’t. The flurry of activity on the Church Herald Blogs, over the past week, has seen a myriad of posts referencing the Belhar (in my opinion) under both categories. The question, then, becomes how it can appropriately be applied outside of its original context.

One of the problems we have, in answering this question, is that as important as it is, we haven’t done a very good job at answering it with our other three standards. Nor, even, have we done an acceptable job answering it in the case of the scriptures. Again, it’s worth noting that the scriptures and the standards are unquestionably on different levels – yet the question is similarly important.

I can’t provide a full hermeneutic on the standards, but let me at least suggest the following:

(1) In order to understand how the standards (and therefore, the Belhar) can be applied outside of their original context, we need to know as much about their original context as possible and what the differences are between their original context and a contemporary one.

(2) The first step in interpreting the standards, is to figure out what they meant to their original audience in their original context.

(3) The second step in interpreting the standards, is to ensure that the “contemporary” (i.e. out of context) interpretation is consistent with the scriptures. (As a standard, I already believe the original interpretation is consistent with the scriptures).

(4) The third step in interpreting the standards, is to ensure that the contemporary interpretation is consistent with original interpretation (i.e. it’s inappropriate to try to get the standards to say something inconsistent with what they were intended to say, even though it is appropriate to carefully apply them to different contexts than originally intended.)

OK, it isn’t a fully functional hermeneutic… but maybe it’s a start.

Thoughts?

Grace and Peace,

`tim

Every year, as Synod approaches, I talk to the congregation I pastor about what’s on the docket and what kinds of things the delegates are going to be talking about, celebrating, learning, etc. Some congregations roll their eyes at the idea of General Synod, but over the past nine years, I think Dunningville has come to understand that Synod plays an important role in the local church as well as the denomination.

Yesterday, shortly before our morning service when I gathered with our Elders to pray, we were talking about Synod and how it can be both extremely fun and extremely frustrating. It’s true. If you’ve never been to a Synod, there are few gatherings of the church that are more fun. Hundreds of people from across the US (and a handful of overseas missionaries flown in to spice things up) are gathered in a single place to pray, worship, deliberate, etc. Good conversations happen over coffee times, meal-times, and – in some cases – late into the night. Good discernment and work is done during advisory committee meetings, plenary sessions and other formal gatherings. All of this can be exceedingly fun.. yes… fun.

Synod, however, can also be frustrating – intensely frustrating! Sometimes it boggles my mind to watch people talk past each other and to see people stand up to speak on things that really have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Sometimes people are so busy crafting their arguments that they don’t even notice that the conversation has moved on, or even more humorously, that someone has already made their point (sometimes even more effectively than they did). The other frustrating thing about Synod is that although you are almost always guaranteed to go home after it’s all done and be very happy with some of the decisions, you are also – regardless of your theological, doctrinal or social positions – often equally as unhappy with others.

That’s where the conversation before church yesterday really caught my attention. Just before we bowed our heads, one of our elders turned to me and said something to the effect of: Synod is good because it reminds people that they don’t always get their way.

Bingo!

Of all the wonderful things that happen at Synod, perhaps the most important is that people are given a bigger view of the church – that their invited (forced?) to recognize that their preferences, their way of doing things, their experience of the faith, and their likes and dislikes aren’t what it’s all about. Synod reminds people that we’re about something bigger than merely remaking the Church (denominational and even universal) in our own image.

Just one more reason that, in the nine years I’ve been at Dunningville, I can honestly say every Consistory I’ve worked with has been a blessing. I hope others of you are as fortunate!

Grace and peace,
`tim

This morning, in church, we did a “check in” on the “Three Pillars.” Essentially, the Three Pillars are arenas within which we expect each member of our congregation to have some kind of growth and development going on at any given time. What may vary from individual to individual. The point isn’t that everyone be working on the same thing or that we all be in the same spot, but rather that each individual be attentive to each of these three areas.

If you’re interested in checking them out. Feel free to download the explanatory handout:

Grace and peace,
`tim

Consider me floored.

Last week I got a call from a member of Zeeland Classis’ nominations committee asking if I’d be willing to accept a nomination to the position of Classis Vice President. For those of you who aren’t familiar with the Reformed Church, a Classis is a regional body (made up of elder and minister delegates from local congregations) that has the rights and responsibilities similar to a Roman Catholic bishop. I am a reasonably active, but often disagreed-with member of our Classis and since the call came so close to the meeting, I assumed they were simply looking for enough people to fill out the nominations spots on the ballot. In short, I had absolutely no expectation that I would ever be elected – literally.

Well. . . you know what they say about assuming. Turns out, I was the only one willing to accept the nomination. That means, the vote ended up being a mere formality. I have now been elected Vice President of Zeeland Classis. That means that barring anything strange, I will be the only one on the ballot for next year’s presidency.

Let me repeat: consider me floored.

As the saying goes, the Lord works in mysterious ways.

This should be interesting! I would appreciate your thoughts and prayers in the months to come.

Grace and Peace,
`tim

I just put up a new post on my portion of the Church Herald blog site regarding the ordination of commissioned pastors.

If you have any interest in such things, I’d appreciate your comments…

Grace and Peace,
`tim

Please?!

I have a thesis deadline coming up in a few days and am still awaiting news from my adviser and second reader – making the deadline doesn’t mean I’m done, but it will mean that I’m dramatically closer to being done. The fortunate thing is that, although the whole process has been dramatically slowed done since my adviser is no longer working at the seminary where I’m studying, he’s brilliant and knows the process really well. I also, apparently, was assigned an awesome second reader. I don’t know him but the rumor is good.

On a completely different note. Those of you who know me know that I have never been accused of being athletic. Although I’ve thoroughly enjoyed Ragbrai the past couple of years, it’s mostly because Ragbrai is only tangentially about being athletic. It’s really more about the people and fun. Despite that, I’ve allowed myself to be talked into running a 5k. Crazy! For the record, Matt Reimink is the guilty party. It’s all his fault. In any case, I’ve now embarked on a 9-week plan called “Couch Potato to 5k” that’s supposed to be able to get anyone – even the likes of me – to the point of being able to make it through the experience. Apparently I’m just a sucker for trying something new. I’ll keep you posted.

On a more theological note, we’re working our way back through the Heidelberg Catechism in our Adult Sunday School class. I am increasingly convinced that one of the fundamental problems in the Church today is a mis-balance of emphasis on Word without Sacrament (in the Protestant Church… just the opposite in most Catholic churches). Add to that the fact that we have so separated the table from the experience of eating and drinking with one another that it’s hard to even pretend that the sacramental table is a “meal.” More will eventually show up on this blog to this effect. I’m just to emotionally and intellectually strung out to type it up for now (see first paragraph of this post…).

Thanks for your thoughts and prayers…

Grace and Peace,
`tim