Regardless of what you think about the past few synods of the Christian Reformed Church of North America and their decisions regarding human sexuality, it’s clear the majority supports the idea of the CRC becoming a more confessional denomination.
Synods 2022, 2023, and 2024 have all declared the importance of the CRC’s historic creeds (The Apostles’ Creed, The Nicene Creed, and The Athanasian Creed) and confessions (The Belgic Confession, The Heidelberg Catechism, and The Canons of Dort). These synods have emphasized particular interpretations of those creeds and confessions and the various biblical doctrines they articulate. The synods have also made clear the expectation that CRC office bearers and, to a lesser extent, CRC members, abide by those interpretations.
Valuing Our Confessions
I’ll confess (pun intended) I have long appreciated that the CRC is a confessional denomination and appreciate how the creeds and confessions articulate what we believe. And specific to serving as a pastor, I appreciate the guardrails that the creeds and confessions give to my preaching and teaching.
I value our confessions. I study them and choose to submit my life and doctrine to them. I believe others in the CRC should study them and submit their lives and doctrine to them too.
A Tale of Two Classes
Early in my ministry, though, it became clear to me that not everyone in the CRC felt that way.
A number of years ago, I was in a classis meeting and on the docket was a discussion about an interim pastor who was serving one of our churches. The church in question had experienced an acrimonious split from their previous pastor. In the aftermath, the church had made their youth pastor their interim pastor. He was a winsome, gifted preacher and his ministry was bearing fruit. The church wanted to make his appointment permanent.
There was one problem, however: He wouldn’t baptize his children. He came from a believer baptism background and, despite a period of training in the CRC’s covenant theology, he remained in favor of believer baptism. While he promised not to preach or teach against the CRC’s position, he informed our classis that he intended to remain firm in his biblical and theological convictions. In light of that, the classis discussed whether we would allow him to continue serving as the church’s pastor.
That discussion went back-and-forth for a long time with classis members on both sides. Some felt that, given the fruit of his ministry and how well he was doing, the classis should allow him to continue serving as the congregation’s pastor. Others felt, given his personal convictions, we could not, in good conscience, allow him to continue. Both sides expressed their views, got a bit frustrated, and started to get a bit heated. Finally, the pastor in question, who had been sitting and listening to all of this, said that rather than cause further division in the church (and, by that, I think he meant both in the congregation he was serving as well as our broader classis), he would resign. This, in effect, ended the discussion, and, after a few more comments, classis expressed its agreement (reluctantly for some) and moved to take a break.
During the break, as I perused the coffee and cookies, I overheard a few of our delegates talking. “It’s refreshing to see someone stand so firm in their convictions,” said one. “I think we made a mistake. We should have tried to keep him.”
“Yes,” another said. “He certainly stood strong in his convictions. And that’sadmirable. But what about our convictions? Aren’t those worth standing up for too?”
A few years later, at another classis meeting, I observed an examination for licensure to exhort (an exam for someone to preach in one of our churches). At one point in the exam, the candidate was asked about the creeds and confessions. (This is a common question.) “Yeah,” the candidate replied, “I think I might have read one of our confessions. I remember going through the Heidelberg Catechism when I was in high school. But I haven’t read it since. And I don’t think I’ve ever read The Belgic Confession or the Canons of Dort. So I’m not really sure what those two are about.” The exam continued, and eventually the candidate left the room, and we began to deliberate.
Once again, the room was split. Some, especially a number of us pastors, felt that since this candidate was applying to preach in a CRC pulpit, he needed to at least have read the creeds and confessions. According to CRC polity, preaching is done in accordance with the creeds and confessions. “How can he do that,” we asked, “if he’s never read some of them?” Others, though, felt this wasn’t important. “He’ll be fine,” they said. “He aced the rest of the exam. What does it matter if he hasn’t read all the creeds and confessions?”
Once again, things started to get heated. At one point, one of the delegates from the candidate’s church got up and said, “You ivory tower pastors. All you care about is your theology and your creeds and confessions. You know all that stuff. But you don’t know this man. We do. He’s a good man. He’ll do a good job. Who cares if he’s never read the creeds and confessions? You should just let us have him.” And let them have him we did. After a bit more discussion, in a narrow vote (the narrowest I’ve ever seen in a classis meeting), we voted to pass the candidate and grant him licensure to exhort.
Inconsistent Confessionalism
All the talk in the CRC about creeds and confessions is a recent trend. Both of the stories I related took place before 2022, the year Synod voted to make its interpretation of “unchastity” in the Heidelberg Catechism apply to homosexual sexual activity. Both incidents took place before the Human Sexuality Report (HSR) was published. Both incidents might have taken place before that report was even commissioned (I truthfully can’t remember; my recollection of the timeline of those classis meetings and where they fell in the broader timeline of the HSR’s commissioning and development and the related synodical conversation is a bit fuzzy).
What isn’t fuzzy, though, is how the same churches and classes eventually responded to the HSR and synod’s decisions. Despite their less stringent confessionalism around covenantal theology, infant baptism, and preaching, all of those churches and classes were strongly in favor of the HSR and that its interpretation of the word “unchastity” be given confessional status.
These churches and classes never seemed to care that much about the creeds and confessions before and had, in fact, actively sidelined and disregarded them. But now they suddenly cared. Why the shift?”
A Confessionalism of Convenience, Part 1
In the days before the HSR and questions about confessional status, in the days before Synod 2022 and fights about gravamen (the CRC’s most recent confessional-related battleground), the creeds and confessions were, to many in the CRC, documents that were paid lip service to but not actually engaged.
When the debate over human sexuality in the CRC picked up and Heidelberg Catechism Question and Answer 108 provided a mechanism to single out and prosecute those in the denomination who disagreed with a traditional position on human sexuality, the creeds and confessions started to matter much, much more.
Putting My Cards on the Table
In order to say what I’m about to say, I should put my cards on the table.
I am a traditionalist on sexuality and gender. I believe that marriage is between one man and one woman. I believe that sex is reserved for the confines of marriage. I believe that those who find themselves outside the confines of a marriage between and man and a woman should embrace celibacy. I believe that’s the best and most reliable way to interpret scripture, and, as I said above, I also believe in the CRC’s creeds and confessions. I read them. I study them. I endeavor to abide by them and submit my life and doctrine to them.
A Confessionalism of Convenience, Part 2
Precisely because I believe all of that, I do not believe in the inconsistent application of the CRC’s creeds and confessions.
I do not believe the creeds and confessions should be wielded when it suits our purposes and ignored the rest of the time. That is not what it means to be confessional. That is not what it means to give the creeds and confessions priority. And that is not what it means to abide by or adhere to them. For far too long, we’ve cared about the creeds and confessions sometimes and ignored them at others.
As much as some in the more traditional camp in the CRC like to argue that the CRC’s positions on human sexuality have always been confessional, that we’ve always been confessional as a denomination, and that the recent debate over human sexuality is simply a return to our roots, I know that’s not the case. I know, because I’ve seen it. I’ve witnessed it.
A More Recent Example
Since the October 7, 2023, Hamas attack on Israel, I’ve heard an outpouring of support for Israel in the CRC. This is neither new or surprising. After all, both major political parties in the United States have historically supported the modern nation-state of Israel, and the majority of evangelical Christians have historically supported the modern nation-state of Israel too.
What is surprising, though, are some of the arguments I’ve heard CRC people using to express that support. “Israel is God’s chosen nation here on earth,” they say, “and so, as their ‘cousins’ in Christ, we need to advocate for and stand up for them.” Going back to anotherclassis meeting I once attended, I heard an elder from a CRC congregation make that argument. I don’t remember the exact context or why it came up, but I do remember this elder chastising the rest of us for not being more supportive of Israel. “I know it’s not Reformed,” he said. “I know it’s not CRC. I know it’s not what we believe. But I think it should be. I think we should support Israel. I think we should support Israel, because they’re God’s chosen people. I think that’s biblical; I think it’s right; and I think it’s wrong that we don’t believe that.”
There are many people in the CRC who would agree with that elder and with the idea that the CRC should be more supportive of the modern nation-state of Israel because they’re still God’s chosen people. The problem, though, (as that elder actually acknowledged), is that that is not what the CRC believes. It’s notthe CRC’s theology. And it’s not Reformed either.
The reason it’s notwhat the CRC believes, not our theology, and not Reformed is because it’s not confessional. The idea that the modern nation-state of Israel is God’s chosen people, a la John Hagee, the Left Behind series, and premillennial dispensationalism, directly contradicts Article 27 of The Belgic Confession, which says:
We believe and confess one single catholic or universal church—a holy congregation and gathering of true Christian believers, awaiting their entire salvation in Jesus Christ, being washed by his blood, and sanctified and sealed by the Holy Spirit. This church has existed from the beginning of the world and will last until the end, as appears from the fact that Christ is eternal King who cannot be without subjects… And…this holy church is not confined, bound, or limited to a certain place or certain people. But it is spread and dispersed throughout the entire world, though still joined and united in heart and will, in one and the same Spirit, by the power of faith. —The Belgic Confession, Article 27 (emphasis mine)
The modern nation-state of Israel is not God’s chosen people. The church of Jesus Christ is. Through Christ, the church is the inheritor of God’s covenant, the heirs of his promises, and “the Israel of God,” as Paul says at the end of Galatians. Modern Israelis may become part of that “Israel of God,” the church, through Christ. But they are not God’s chosen people on the basis of their ethnic or religious heritage. Or, at least, post-Christ, they aren’t anymore. And yet, many CRC people think they are.
Will the CRC now root out all office bearers and members who hold a dispensationalist perspective on Israel?
I doubt it, because that’s not the fight folks in the CRC currently care about. That’s not the confession the CRC is currently litigating. And that’s not the type of confessionalism the CRC is currently emphasizing.
Instead, for those of us in the CRC, ours is a confessionalism of convenience.
True Confessionalism
But it shouldn’tbe.
Again, as someone who loves the creeds and confessions deeply, abides by them, and chooses to submit myself to them, I would love for the CRC to become a more fully-fledged confessional church. I would love for those in the CRC to study and prioritize our creeds and confessions. And I would love for the CRC to use them, truly, as the guides and guardrails we say they are.
But, to do that, the CRC would need to become much more consistent in our confessionalism, choosing to apply our creeds and confessions not only when they’re convenient, but all the time. We need to stop picking and choosing which aspects of our doctrine are important, weaponizing pieces of the confessions, and using that for our own purposes. We need to become truly confessional, choosing to adhere to and abide by the creeds and confessions not just when they line up with what we think or want to believe, but even when they don’t.
If we’re going to go this route in the CRC and declare ourselves to be a strongly confessional church, then we need to be consistent in our confessionalism, allowing the creeds and confessions to govern our lives and our doctrine not just when it’s convenient or easy for us, but all the time.
Anything less than that would be less than truly confessional. It would also be duplicitous and hypocritical. And that, it turns out, isn’t very confessional either.
28 Responses
Thank you for your honesty and your clarity. This is a great perspective that hasn’t been addressed much.
Thanks for putting this out there Brandon.
I’ve written this before, the whole idea of being a “confessional church” took a drastic turn somewhere between when I began teaching and the recent past, I only see younger pastors advocating this position. I’d love for someone to explain when that happened.
Confessional by convenience is right on. (Very much like original intent of the US constitution by convenience.)
I find it difficult to be guided only by creeds and confessions, they miss so much of what Scripture finds important. In my last years of teaching a local consistory wrote our school board asking that I not be permitted to teach the prophets, they wanted me to teach “against evolution and homosexuality” as those were more important issues. I find very little in the confessions from the prophets, and I find the average CRC member very under informed about the teachings in the prophets. The “three marks of the true church” miss so much of what should be found in a “true church,” I could go on.
All to say, I totally agree that many only want to be “confessional” in regard to HSR. I also cannot believe there is anyone who has honestly read the creeds and confessions, who can totally agree with everything in them without reservation, and that would make signing them a violation of LD 112.
Thank you for your honest perspective. You have put your cards on the table; I will put mine. Regarding sexuality that perspective feels like Fundamentalism to me, even perhaps the idolatry of certitude. I just cannot be that certain about human sexuality, any more than I could to be able to say with any certainty that the Jewish people are not God’s chosen. I just don’t know.
Thank you for this. How many officebearers have read all the confessions? How many have read and understood? How many have read, understood and hold to their every point without reservation??
The phrase “confessionalism of convenience” is spot on. And sadly, a blustering purity is held high.
Thank you very much for the clear and compelling case for the confessions. Their immense value permits one to say, “Here I stand. This is what I believe.” In a time of spiritual uncertainty, where beliefs often dim to a shady, inchoate fuzz and places to stand wobble like cherry jello, I appreciate all the more the firm intellectual and emotional footing of our confessions.
I was a pre-seminary in college and studied the confessionals. Even at that time (1970’s) I held some of the confessional standards tentatively. Over the years I came to an understanding that (1.) The confessionals are not inspired by God in the same ways scriptures are and (2.) like all historical documents they must be read and interpreted in light of the historical content and understanding of the time they were written. I view the confessionals this way (right or wrong). They have helped shape my faith and my theology but they are not the life-springing that faith and theology. That would be the Bible.
Isn’t it ironic that the people of Sola Scriptura, where confessions were fallible summaries of Scripture and guides for the church’s teaching, have now turned confessions into a cudgel to selectively punish and exclude? John Kromminga, Andy Bandstra and Tony Hoekema (the best of post WW 2 Sola Scriptura confessionalists in the CRC) would shutter at what’s happened to the CRC. One side of me predicts this “new confessionalism” in the CRC will die down once synod has ridded itself of those 30 or so churches that are, in synod’s view, just too big for their britches. Another side of me sees this new confessionalism as part of a much broader, world-wide resurgence across many denominations of a hyper-traditionalism that has a very judgmental, polarizing ethos to it. (This side of me is very concerned about the power vacuum created by the death today of Pope Francis, that terrible pope who did himself in with these new confessionalists when he wondered outloud, “who am I to judge?”) Either way this new confessionalism goes, it lacks integrity. Just look at its fruit. And I fear that good CRC members and pastors who already are weary of this harsh ethos will continue to leak away from the CRC.
God have mercy on us all.
I’m probably over simplifying this; but I wonder if we should return to wearing WWJD (what would Jesus do) bracelets as a filter when confronted with evolving life issues.
As he said, “I didn’t come to abolish the law but to fulfill it.”
Thank you, Brandon, for this expression of the tension we are experiencing. I believe it is helpful to see this tension in light of the Age of Tolerance in which we live. The Church is susceptible to its influence, as we all are. To be Confessional is an uncomfortable position because it means we are drawing lines of belief. What feels uncomfortable about that is wondering whether we are “being unloving” by drawing these lines. The expression, “living in an ivory tower” expresses this concern.
The underlying question is, “What is our relationship to those with whom we disagree?” Jesus on one hand says we ought to judge one another within the Church, not those outside it (1 Corinthians 5:12). And on the other hand says, “Judge not, lest you be judged” (Luke 6:37). We tend to lean toward the latter, but both are true. Judging on the one hand is discernment about the ideas a person presents. Judging in the latter case is condemnation of the person themselves.
In our relationships we need to engage with each other’s belief. Sola Scriptura should lead us to robust conversation about the places we disagree with the Confessions. The Apostle Paul commands Timothy to go about pastoring the church and controversies with humility (gentleness) and conviction (1 Tim. 1:3,5; 5:1; 6:11). Humility comes to play when others don’t want to be taught. Are we going to make them listen and agree? But conviction comes to play when we are “able to teach,” (1 Tim. 3:2) being clear about why we believe what we believe and desire for others to be “God-taught,” that is, discerning as they listen to what we have to say.
In the church there will always be differing views. The wheat and the tares grow up together. But the difference between them is not in our views, but in our teachability.
Some of us read the Reformed Journal in hopes of learning from all perspectives of Reformed thinking. Thank you, Brandon, for this “anti-echo chamber” point of view.
Is faith based on a Confession of binding certainties, or is it an embrace of the mystery of the love of God and a commitment to give Him and neighbor our love?
Thank you for this response. I have come to appreciate the Belgic which acknowledges that God is incomprehensible and the source of all good which I think is love.
Thanks Brandan for writing this and RG for sharing it. You point out the confessional hypocrisy we have seen and felt at synod and classis meetings. In fact, after sitting through the last 3 synods I would say that most of the deliberations (80%?) have been circling around the confessions, almost as if they are infallible, and there has been little talk of Jesus and how he would respond to people, current issues, and the church today. I respect your certainty, and it gives you a platform to speak to both sides of the confessional issues – both to those who gladly sign the Covenant for Office Bearers and those who can’t. I have to say that I have found great freedom in holding things loosely. I’ve found a refreshing honesty in allowing for certainty or questions – or both at the same time. You would probably agree with me that most people in the pews in CRC churches don’t really understand this confessional hypocrisy as they’ve never been involved in a synod or classis meeting (and they don’t really want to know). Perhaps you are a good messenger in this truth telling. I know and love you, and I know you are not afraid. Blessings
Oops – thanks RJ for sharing it.
Thanks, and thanks to all the commenters. They don’t touch on the “Israel” part of your posting. I’m thinking there are more nuanced versions of the view you seem to critique that would embrace everything you say (which fits into one form of classic “supercessionist” theology), but also hold that the continuing people of Israel have an very special ongoing place in God’s redemptive scheme. I think the political voices you critique may have that part of things right, and if so, maybe that should be acknowledged.
One wonders how many members the CRC would have left if it left behind (how many church libraries have the Left Behind series in them?) picking and choosing when to follow the confessions and instead pursued this strict confessionalism.
As the author points out there is a lot of confessional drift that is allowed in the CRC as long as it is not related to the HSR. Stopping this confessional drift would likely be a full time job and pushing strict confessionalism would likely push many out of leadership in the CRC.
I applaud the challenge that we ought to be more consistently confessional but question how we will achieve this given the increasing prevalence in the CRC of the concept that “certainty” in even the clearest Biblical concepts is sinful/prideful/idolatry.
Pastor Brandon, it warms my heart to see how all the commenters thus far have responded to this thought-provoking article of yours with grace and gentle candor (Thank you, commenters, for the manner in which you have engaged the work of my Pastor and friend; and thank you RJ for sharing his article).
Similar to you, Pastor Brandon, I think it is admirable for someone to have a high regard for the creeds and confessions of the church, and admirable when they regularly spend time and energy seriously studying and reflecting on the creeds and confessions of the church. Indeed, as long as they are and remain ever mindful that scripture takes precedence over all the creeds and confessions, and that God takes precedence over scripture and all else, the life of a strongly confessional Christ-follower tends to bear good spiritual fruit in droves – or at least, that has been my observation.
So, yes, I reckon the main concern for many in the CRC now is basically this: if the CRC is going to be a denomination known for its confessionalism, what kind of confessionalism will it be known for? What kind of confessionalism do those who are part of the CRC want to see being promoted and nurtured in congregations and embodied by persons? A well-balanced and spiritually nourishing kind, or an overly stringent (or fickle) and spiritually detrimental/unhelpful kind? Personally, I hope and pray a healthier kind of confessionalism is what primarily manifests and takes stronger root within the CRC, but who knows if this is what will happen (well, besides God, of course)? In any case, it is a blessing to know that regardless of what comes to pass, God will continue being God and doing what only God can do.
The confessions for me were man’s attempts to organize our beliefs as well as to summarize them in a succinct way, neither infallible nor divinely inspired. I believe our salvation is by grace alone and not merited by “right” beliefs. I feel our denomination is mistaken to elevate them to confessional status. One wonders if all congregants had voted instead of selected delegates if the results would have been the same.
“I feel our denomination is mistaken to elevate [the confessions] to confessional status.”
Aren’t the confessions already confessional by definition? How is it possible to elevate something to a status it already has by definition?
The confessions themselves teach salvation by grace alone and not by right beliefs or human merits. As such, confessionality is right in line with your stated belief.
Thank you for this, Brandon. I think it’s an important perspective for the church to hear in this season.
It value this essay very much. The Doctrinal Standards have been a great gift to my life and ministry. I have studied them, preached them, and taught them. Being RCA, I did not ever have to regard them as infallible, or even as law, but as faithful and historic witnesses, and as witnesses i treasure them. One can’t be “Reformed” without being confessional in some sense. It is our way of being “Catholic.” Otherwise we become Puritan. I have some confidence that, despite the CRC elevating the Doctrinal Standards so high that they become frozen and even idolatrous, that the some CRCs will continue to be nourished by them in an open and liberating way. I know this sounds patronizing, but that is a hope drawn from my own experience.
A few thoughts (some regarding the O.P., some addressing comments):
1) The author seems to exhibit a bit of an Elijah complex here. He should take heart in knowing that he is not alone in his commitment to the confessions. It is not true that true confessionalism has never been tried or has fallen out of favor across the CRC. It is also not true that confessionalism is just now being rediscovered as a way to selectively prosecute. Perhaps the author’s orbit and exposures are a bit too narrow. Many churches and officebearers across the CRC have remained robustly confessional in knowledge and practice. I would offer that it is these churches and officebearers who have carried the torch in reviving focus on the confessions for those who have allowed for or actively pursued confessional selectivity or diminishment.
2) It is both unsurprising and sad that the author can identify instances of confessional laxity or selectivity in the CRC. These anecdotes, however, are insufficient to paint the denomination with the broad brush wielded by the author.
3) To be confessional is not to be guided and formed “only” by the creeds and confessions. Confessional churches make no claim as to the comprehensive nature of the confessions (such was never their purpose) but as to their faithfulness as testimonies to the doctrine of Scripture. That is not to say that they contain all doctrine, just that they are faithful in explaining the doctrines that they address.
4) It occurs to me that this article is posted on a site filled with authors and commenters who have helped lead the charge in the confessional diminishment that can be found in the CRC.
5) To value the confessions as the CRC has always done is not to worship them or treat them as infallible. There is no gravamen process to alter Scripture, but there is to a gravamen process to revise the confessions. For those so sure that they have identified error in the confessions, let them present their case to the church, as they have promised. If their argument prevails, to God be the glory for correcting error through them. If their argument fails, let them submit to the government of the church, as they have promised.
6) The CRC has not recently elevated the confessions – they have the same status and purpose as they have always had. That some have treated them as lesser is not to their credit.
7) The author’s Israel/dispensationalist example is an apples-and-oranges comparison to what the CRC has been working through recently. Are there churches preaching and teaching dispensationalism, including openly promoting it on their webpages? The author mentions a one-off elder comment and his belief that many people in the CRC would agree with that elder. To attempt to parallel this vignette with the application of confessional understanding to human sexuality falls far short of a proof of confessional selectivity that the author wants to press. I wonder: If this confessional selectivity/error was so concerning as to use to publicly chastise the CRC in broad terms, did the author have the moral clarity to seek to rectify this elder’s error in person or through his Consistory? We don’t get that part of the story, if indeed it occurred.
8) In conclusion, I certainly share the author’s call for confessional commitment and consistency, but I think he fails to recognize just how much of this approach has been the norm throughout much of the CRC, and thus he overstates his accusations of confessional laxity and selectivity.
Addressing your point number 2 Eric, while the author’s testimony is “sad” and “unsurprising,” at the same time these two examples are by no means uniform. The author was not the only one seeking to uphold confessionalism in these two cases, and even when confessionalism was on the “loosing” side, it was so by the most split Classis vote he had ever witnessed. While the author goes on to claim that there was no confessionalism to return to, I think he is both taking too narrow view of our past (it predates his ordination), and not fully recognizing what he and others in his Classis were working towards all along. Instead of confessionalism being new, maybe it is more accurate to say that it is now in ascendancy in the CRCNA again, and certainly, I join the author in encouraging all members of the CRCNA to live more faithfully into our confessions in every way.
While I appreciate Brandon’s call to a more consistent confessionalism, I think that it is ultimately an impossible task. The idea of a strict confessional stance must ultimately lead to a dead church. The history of both Israel and the church of Jesus Christ ought to show that we can never arrive at absolute certainty about much more than the bare essentials of the Ecumenical Creeds. It is of the nature of theology that it develops and changes over time given the historical, political, and intellectual circumstances in which the church lives. We can never do anything more than honor our Reformed confessions as an historical record of a tradition in motion.
Our understanding of God and of God’s ways are not static ideas, but dynamic concepts that change as we move through time and circumstances. Strict confessional orthodoxy warns us against any further study that might shake the foundations of that orthodoxy. Yet our readings of the Bible are always bound in some sense by the social, political, and intellectual times in which we live. For example, while Penal Substitutionary Atonement made some sense in the medieval and early modern world of the Reformation with its absolute monarchies and nominalist philosophy, it raises profound issues today. Hence the many scholarly biblical and theological studies that offer fresh readings of both the Hebrew Scriptures and the New Testament in which atonement is neither penal or substitutionary, and yet fully biblical and even more deeply meaningful.
A confessionalism that seeks to freeze dry Christian doctrine to a certain historical time and place is doomed to failure, and worse, will create a dead-end tradition and a church trapped in confessional amber. The Scriptures are alive because the Holy Spirit continues to reveal their deep and exciting truth in new ways and in new times.
Theological traditions still have value. I consider myself to stand solidly in the Reformed tradition, anchored in the sovereign love of God. But that cannot mean that I must stand by every jot and tittle of 16th century Reformed expressions of the Reformed faith. That’s why I was happy and relieved to transfer my ordination credentials to the RCA which calls for my allegiance to the confessions as historical expressions of the Reformed faith.
Wow. I appreciate the fact that the RJ published this. Given most of what I had read in it over the last several years I thought such an essay would have been excluded out of hand. Glad it was published. This is a conversation the CRC has needed to have for the last 50 years. I’m not sure any of us know how to have it but it looks like we’re into it however badly.