Obviously, the best outcome would be for all of the churches to repent and stay in the CRC. I have been praying regularly for that outcome for the past four years.
I think you misspeak when you say that any congregation is "being forced to disaffiliate." That's inaccurate. Nobody has been forced to disaffiliate. Ev…
Obviously, the best outcome would be for all of the churches to repent and stay in the CRC. I have been praying regularly for that outcome for the past four years.
I think you misspeak when you say that any congregation is "being forced to disaffiliate." That's inaccurate. Nobody has been forced to disaffiliate. Every one of these churches has specifically chosen to enter into the process of disaffiliation because they are refusing to align themselves with the official teaching of the CRC.
Also, I am satisfied that only 30 churches have chosen to disaffiliate. Trust me, if the decisions of that last three years would have done a different direction, I estimate that we would have lost 500-600 churches, which would have killed the CRCNA.
To speak to your last point, I want to say two things. First, the standards in the Covenant for Officebearers haven't changed as a result of Synod's decisions, they were simply clarified. This is what we've always believed and the standard that has always been in place in the CRNCA. The issue is that many churches have not been living in alignment with these standards for a long time, which is why people think something has changed. However, Synod has repeatedly stated that this is not a change, only a clarification.
Second, I realize that some churches may struggle to find councils members who can sign the Covenant for Officebearers in good conscience now that these things have been clarified. What is the solution? I would suggest that the solution is not to continually try to lower the standard to get people into leadership roles, but to do a better job of discipling our people in the standards. So, if we have people who we believe could be a good council member, we should begin discipling that person so that they can fully understand and wholeheartedly believe in the doctrines of our church. That way, they can effectively serve and shepherd the flock according to what we believe.
I always find it interesting that so many people thinks it's fine to have leaders who do not agree with the doctrines of our church—or even leaders who do not wholeheartedly believe in the doctrines. Why would we want that? Does any business hire C-Suite level leaders who are not in alignment with the values of that company? To be honest, business aren't even simply looking for alignment at this level of leader, they are looking for people who wholeheartedly believe in the mission and vision of their company—people who are passionately promoting these things in the world. Why would we want something else in the church?
I actually think that part of the reason we got into such a mess in the CRCNA is because we continually failed in discipleship and continually lowered the standards for the leaders of our churches. The way to fix the problem is not to continue doing what we've been doing, but to repent—turn around—and start discipling our people so that they both passionately believe and are passionate promoters of the teachings of the CRCNA. If we have these kind of leaders in our churches, we will begin to see the CRC come back to life.
Thanks for reaching out.
Obviously, the best outcome would be for all of the churches to repent and stay in the CRC. I have been praying regularly for that outcome for the past four years.
I think you misspeak when you say that any congregation is "being forced to disaffiliate." That's inaccurate. Nobody has been forced to disaffiliate. Every one of these churches has specifically chosen to enter into the process of disaffiliation because they are refusing to align themselves with the official teaching of the CRC.
Also, I am satisfied that only 30 churches have chosen to disaffiliate. Trust me, if the decisions of that last three years would have done a different direction, I estimate that we would have lost 500-600 churches, which would have killed the CRCNA.
To speak to your last point, I want to say two things. First, the standards in the Covenant for Officebearers haven't changed as a result of Synod's decisions, they were simply clarified. This is what we've always believed and the standard that has always been in place in the CRNCA. The issue is that many churches have not been living in alignment with these standards for a long time, which is why people think something has changed. However, Synod has repeatedly stated that this is not a change, only a clarification.
Second, I realize that some churches may struggle to find councils members who can sign the Covenant for Officebearers in good conscience now that these things have been clarified. What is the solution? I would suggest that the solution is not to continually try to lower the standard to get people into leadership roles, but to do a better job of discipling our people in the standards. So, if we have people who we believe could be a good council member, we should begin discipling that person so that they can fully understand and wholeheartedly believe in the doctrines of our church. That way, they can effectively serve and shepherd the flock according to what we believe.
I always find it interesting that so many people thinks it's fine to have leaders who do not agree with the doctrines of our church—or even leaders who do not wholeheartedly believe in the doctrines. Why would we want that? Does any business hire C-Suite level leaders who are not in alignment with the values of that company? To be honest, business aren't even simply looking for alignment at this level of leader, they are looking for people who wholeheartedly believe in the mission and vision of their company—people who are passionately promoting these things in the world. Why would we want something else in the church?
I actually think that part of the reason we got into such a mess in the CRCNA is because we continually failed in discipleship and continually lowered the standards for the leaders of our churches. The way to fix the problem is not to continue doing what we've been doing, but to repent—turn around—and start discipling our people so that they both passionately believe and are passionate promoters of the teachings of the CRCNA. If we have these kind of leaders in our churches, we will begin to see the CRC come back to life.