Application for
Leave to Withdraw
Petition for Leave to Withdraw from the
Denomination for the Purpose of Affiliating with Another Denomination
Whereas the Consistory of First
Reformed Church has carefully considered the best interests of Christ’s Church
in our denominational affiliation…
And
Whereas the Congregation has
overwhelmingly 98.5% affirmed the consistory’s recommendation to transfer to a
new denomination, believing this will best serve Christ’s Kingdom…
And
Whereas the Book of Church Order has provided the process for a Congregation to
pursue such a course of action (Book of
Church Order Chapter 1, Part II, Article 7, Section 18, 19):
The
Consistory of First Reformed Church petitions the Classis of Illiana-Florida
(RCA) for approval to withdraw from the Reformed Church in America and be
transferred to the Chicago Metro Presbytery of the Presbyterian Church in
America (PCA); together with all of its real and personal property free from
any claim of the Reformed Church in America, or any assembly, board, or agency
thereof.
SIGNED:
Elders Deacons
Ministers of Word and Sacrament:
The
Book of Church Order: Grounds and
Process for Withdrawal
Brothers and sisters, as we have deliberated over these past
months and years over whether we feel it is appropriate to seek fellowship with
another denomination one of our chief concerns has been that we are fully
faithful to our current commitments. To
this end we have diligently studied the Book of Church Order and in our study
have found that the BCO anticipates a situation, such as ours, in which a
congregation feels that the church of Jesus Christ is best served through a
peaceful and amiable separation from the Reformed Church in America.
The
Book of Church Order says the
following regarding appropriate grounds for withdrawal of a church from the
Reformed Church in America for the express purpose of joining another
denomination (1.II.7, Sec. 18):
a.
such church can no longer function effectively in its present relationship;
b.
the effectiveness of such congregation as a local church could be enhanced if
it were to affiliate with another denomination;
c.
the denomination with which it desires to affiliate furnishes written evidence
that the church in question would be able to exercise a more effective ministry
under its jurisdiction, and that if such church were to be transferred to its
jurisdiction, it would be received without reservation as a church having all
the rights and privileges of any of its churches.
We understand these clauses establish two criteria for
withdrawal:
The
“effectiveness criterion”: The BCO
envisions that the RCA may not be the best place for a congregation to minister
effectively. It allows such a congregation to transfer to another denomination
that would enhance its ministry effectiveness. Therefore, effectiveness in
ministry is of chief concern in this petition.
Perhaps
unfortunately the BCO does not
clearly define what constitutes “effective ministry.” Because of this we will
try to give our best understanding of what it means to minister effectively and
why it is that we feel we are no longer able to do so in good conscience within
the Reformed Church in America.
The
“full partnership” criterion: The BCO does
not allow a congregation to enter another denomination unless it is received as
a fully participating member of that denomination. Since we fully embrace the wisdom of this
requirement we are eager to demonstrate that in fact we will be a welcome and
valued member of the Presbyterian Church in America.
Also
in our study of the BCO we have found a very fair, open, and timely process for
the classis to follow in considering the petition of the church seeking to
withdraw. The Book of Church Order outlines this process in 1.II.7, Sec. 19:
a.
The petition for withdrawal shall be promptly referred to the executive
committee, the Committee on Judicial Business, or a special committee, as shall
be determined by the classis or its executive committee.
b.
The classis committee shall meet with the congregation, with the consistory of
the church, and with representatives of the denomination with which the church
desires to affiliate. The committee shall endeavor to ascertain the basic facts
and conditions underlying the petition, endeavor to reconcile any differences
of opinion within the congregation and between the church and the denomination,
explore the advantages and disadvantages of a withdrawal and the needs of both
the church and the denomination, and endeavor to ascertain how Christ’s Kingdom
may best be served in the matter.
c.
The committee shall endeavor to ascertain the will of the congregation at a
meeting…
d.
The committee shall file its report with the stated clerk of the classis within
six months after its appointment, setting forth its findings and
recommendations. Such report shall be submitted to the classis at a regular or
a special meeting held within sixty days and after receipt of the report by the
stated clerk.
We are fully committed to being willing and responsible
members of this process.
Reasons for Withdrawal from the RCA
Brothers and sisters,
in this portion of our petition we desire to share with you why it is that we
feel we can no longer minister effectively and in good conscience within the
Reformed Church in America. We hope that
as you read this you will not find us to be combative, but informative, not
angry at any one person or entity, but grieved that we feel so out of step with
our historic home.
Our determination to petition for transfer from the Reformed
Church in America to the Presbyterian Church in America was not made lightly.
It comes after years of seeking to serve, influence, and advocate for unity in
truth within the RCA. Allow us now to
outline our reasons for pursuing this transfer.
As we do we will be indicating why this move will enhance the
effectiveness and fruitfulness of the ministry of First Reformed Church.
Here we will list four specific areas of concern (in no
particular order) and provide a summary of why these issues within the RCA are
concerning to us. In doing so we hope
you will see how it is that we feel we simply can no longer minister within the
RCA effectively and in good conscience.
Much of our research on these issues has been a shared task
between a number of churches and ministers who share mutual concern over these
issues. While we do not feel compelled
to give credit to each person who contributed to this research we do wish to
make known that our presentation of these issues is the result of efforts
ranging beyond just our own congregation.
Concerns about the Confession of Belhar
Our former General Secretary adequately stated the
importance of confessions within the life of our denomination:
A confession is studied by and commended
to each student in ministerial formation for preparation as minister of Word
and sacrament. Ministers in the RCA acknowledge publicly that they accept
confessions as “historic and faithful witnesses to the Word of God.” Thus, a
confession is the lens through which the truth of the Scripture is distilled
and taught. A confession is foundational to the identity and self-understanding
of a church. A confession serves as a covenantal bond clarifying how Christian
faith is to be understood. A confession provides a way to express the unity of
Christian conviction held by a body of believers.[1]
Addressing the continued relevance of confessions in an
increasingly pluralistic society, Professor Carl Trueman comments,
As other religions collide with
Christianity, and especially as some of those religions use the same kind of
biblical vocabulary that we use, it is going to be more and more crucial that
we understand not only what words to use, but also what those words actually
mean. Your friendly Mormon neighbor might well agree with you that Jesus is
Lord; he may even sing some of the same hymns at his worship service. Thus, you
are going to need to know what exactly your church means when it says “Jesus is
Lord” or performs baptism in the name of the Father, the Son, and the Holy
Spirit. Good confessions enable you to do that with greater ease than anything
else.[2]
We have no interest in waging a campaign to remove the Belhar Confession as a standard of the
Reformed Church. Our denomination has settled the question on whether the Belhar will serve as a confession for
the RCA. It will. At the same time, we feel it is important to provide a
summary of why the Belhar Confession
concerns us and constitutes a significant factor in our decision to submit this
petition for withdrawal and transfer.
We’re
concerned about what it is.
While we have gladly celebrated the rich history of the
confession itself and social impulses expressed in the Belhar Confession, we have also maintained that the primary problem
with the document is that we cannot regard it as a confession. In our
estimation, while Belhar may serve as
a meaningful statement or a helpful historical reference point, it does not
share the essential, confession-making qualities of our other three
confessions. Perhaps this is why it has not been received by two of our closest
denominational relations—the Presbyterian Church (USA) and the Christian
Reformed Church.
Dr. John Cooper, professor of philosophical theology at
Calvin Seminary, argues:
Compared to our three “Forms of Unity”
... the Belhar Confession is much too
brief and narrow to be a confession. It neither summarizes the Christian faith
(as do the Heidelberg Catechism and Belgic Confession) nor elaborates God’s
plan of redemption (Canons of Dort). Moreover, its prologue states that it was
not meant to be a doctrinal standard.[3]
Alan Wisdom, from the PC(USA) comments:
Belhar,
unlike other confessions, does not say much about the work of Christ in his
life, ministry, death, and resurrection. It starts with a brief reference to
“Christ’s work of reconciliation” but then moves quickly to focus on human
relationships in church and society. The problem is that the pattern of
Reformed theology is to start with God’s work in Jesus Christ and only then
move to draw ethical and political implications.[4]
And from another tradition, African-American Baptist pastor
Thabiti Anyabwile summarizes:
Belhar
could never stand alone as a confession... Belhar
lacks any definition of the Gospel or most other cardinal points of Christian
belief. It must stand on the shoulders of ... other confessions–and
secondary to them–or else the entire Christian confession falls, in my
opinion. Others have already noted this, but it warrants stating again.[5]
We’re
concerned about what it does and doesn’t say.
We believe that the Belhar
Confession fails to speak with clarity on key issues an adequate confession
would address. Dr. Cooper comments,
The Belhar
focuses on God’s concern for the poor, racial reconciliation, and social
justice. But it does not first make clear the basic gospel truths that all
humans are sinners, that salvation is God’s gracious gift of eternal life
extended without regard to social status, and that salvation comes only through
repentance and faith in Jesus Christ. (Cooper, ibid.)
Belhar
demands that “the church must witness against and strive against any form of
injustice.” But this categorical assertion about the mission of the church
seems too broad. In the words of one commentator:
Belhar’s
language seems to be a prescription for endless political crusades against
every form of perceived injustice. Already, the ... Reformed Church in
America...has indicated that it will use the confession to address issues such
as agricultural subsidies, refugee resettlement, opposing the Iraq War,
liberalizing immigration laws, raising the minimum wage, and ending U.S.
sanctions against Cuba. Whatever you may feel about those particular issues,
the question must be raised: Does the list have any end? Does Belhar give us any help in discerning
the difference between clear issues where the church is called to take a strong
corporate stand and cloudier issues that it ought to leave to the political
judgment of its members? (Wisdom, ibid.)
The Belhar depicts God as “in a special way the God of the
destitute, the poor and the wronged.” It calls the church to “stand where the
Lord stands”: “with the wronged” and “against all the powerful and privileged
who selfishly seek their own interests and thus control and harm others.”
Again, such language is imprecise and potentially unhelpful. Wisdom comments:
“This binary
view of society made some sense in the South Africa of the 1980s. It really was divided starkly between a white
minority and a non-white majority.
But does this dualistic language of
class conflict accurately describe our U.S. society in 2011? Is our society
neatly divided between the oppressed and their oppressors? Is it such a simple
thing to take sides with the oppressed? Do the political forces that claim to
represent the oppressed always in fact serve their best interests? Just because
a movement attacks “the powerful and privileged” does not mean that it really
helps the poor.
It’s even more complicated in America
today. If you took a poll, I suspect that most respondents would identify
themselves as members of some oppressed group. Some of my fellow conservative
Christians see themselves as a persecuted minority, and I think they look a bit
ridiculous all decked out in their martyrs’ robes. And they are far from the
only ones who cultivate their self-image as a victim group. Everybody wants to
be counted as oppressed, and nobody admits to being an oppressor.
Granted that God has a particular
concern for the poor—liberation theology was right on that point—does it help
the poor to turn God into a partisan for their social faction? Aren’t rich and
poor alike in the grips of sinful inclinations and sinful systems? Don’t we
call both to repentance and redemption in Christ? Aren’t we seeking social
systems that restore both rich and poor to their proper humanity?
I recognize that Belhar does not go to the extremes of militant liberation theology.
But its binary language pitting “the wronged” against “the powerful and
privileged” is still not helpful in our PCUSA context of 2011. Seeking justice
in most cases involves a lot more than deciding who are “the wronged” and
lining up on their side. It requires political prudence to balance various
legitimate claims of parties that have all suffered wrongs and all committed
wrongs. Belhar’s liberation theology
rhetoric is not our best guide through these complexities. We may need to find
more suitable words. (Wisdom, Ibid.)
Cooper sums up the issue well:
Read as a confession—a summary of the
Christian faith or the gospel—the Belhar
does look like the social gospel or liberation theology. It seems to equate the
gospel with social well-being and to conflate human reconciliation with
reconciliation to God. It does not sufficiently distinguish salvation from
providence, eternal life from earthly welfare, or unity in Christ from human
solidarity. (Cooper, Ibid.)
We’re
concerned about what it’s being used to say.
Unlike the Three Forms
of Unity, the Belhar Confession
is an ambiguous document. The point of a confession is to bring doctrinal
clarity to essential issues. Such clarity fosters a true Christian unity,
rooted in biblical truth. Rather than doing this, we feel the Belhar Confession muddies the water.
Several examples could be offered. But the most poignant have to do with the
ways the Belhar Confession has been
used to address the debate over homosexuality in the church.
Kevin DeYoung has observed:
Allen Boesak, under whose leadership Belhar was first drafted, recently made
headlines when he ‘dramatically insisted that the church’s Belhar Confession demands
the defense of the full rights of gay members. When the synod rejected this, he
announced his intention to resign from all church offices and left the synod
floor with his wife’ (The Banner, January, 16). If the man responsible for
overseeing the first draft of the Belhar
Confession asserts that support for
homosexual unions and homosexual ordination is demanded by the Confession, why
should we think that this document will not be used in the RCA to a similar
end.[6]
Our former General Secretary, Wes Granberg-Michaelson,
delivered a paper titled, “What Might the Confession
of Belhar Unify?” While acknowledging the Belhar Confession does not advocate for the full inclusion of
practicing homosexuals, Granberg-Michaelson indicated that the Belhar Confession certainly has
something to say to churches debating the issue:
...where did we ever get the idea that
[differences over homosexuality] could determine whether or not [we] should
regard one another as brothers and sisters in the same denomination? [The issue
of homosexuality] ... is not addressed by the Belhar Confession, ...
But that does not deprive this confession of power to guide those denominations
threatened with division over [homosexual relationships]...There is no excuse
in the Belhar Confession which justifies ignoring this “binding force” of God’s
Spirit. ... This unity must be real. It “must become visible so that the world
may believe...” In my own North American context, the church needs to hear
these words with the confessional weight that Belhar intends, and obey.[7]
According to this reading of the Belhar Confession, it would appear that to separate from a church
that rejects the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality is a greater sin than
celebrating sexual practices that Scripture clearly condemns.
We’re
concerned about what it will force pastors and elders to say.
The confessions form the theological basis for ordaining
ministers and holding them accountable. When pastors enter a new classis; when
theological students sit before an examination committee; when we stand before
our classis and state that we “accept the Standards as historic and faithful
witnesses to the Word of God”; when subscribing to our confessions, the
Minister of Word and Sacrament or Commissioned Pastor is making a statement of
integrity and inviting accountability. We believe that any minister the Lord
might call to serve our congregation will not be able to make such a statement
about the Belhar Confession with full
confidence and in a pure conscience.
We are aware that there are many ideas within the Reformed
Church in America concerning what it means to confess the confessions to be
“faithful and historic witnesses to the Reformed faith.” Our conviction is that we are a confessional
church and the confessions of our church guide and direct our theological
hermeneutic. We do not believe the Belhar Confession is a faithful guide
for the teaching ministries of our congregation and we cannot expect our
pastors or officers to confess it in good conscience.
We’re
concerned about where it will lead us.
While we celebrate and affirm the historic role the Belhar Confession played in undermining
apartheid, we do not believe the Belhar
Confession should serve as a foundation-level document for building the
church of the future. While we affirm the heart for unity, reconciliation, and
justice expressed in its most stirring passages, we question the precision of
its language.
An additional concern to us is the way in which the Belhar Confession’s adoption has vaulted
it to the top of the confessional ‘pecking order’. At a recent synod we attempted to count the
number of references to the Belhar
Confession v. the Three Forms of
Unity. It was hard to get a precise
count, but our best guess is that the ratio was at least 20-1. The prioritizing of a confession which we do
not confess is a matter of increasing concern as we consider the theological
trajectory of the Reformed Church in America.
Ultimately, we are convinced that the Belhar Confession will not lead to greater unity in truth within
the Reformed Church in America. The Belhar
Confession will only lead us further into the very situation that we find
so untenable, everyone will continue to do what seems best in their own eyes
and will continue to import their own desires into our authoritative
documents. The Belhar Confession’s lack of clarity and theological ambiguity lends
itself freely to precisely that problem.
Conclusion
Brothers and sisters, we understand that the RCA has
embraced the Belhar Confession and
that the Belhar Confession has, at
times, had a wonderful effect on Christ’s church. While we opposed its adoption as a confession
(as did our classis) we have no illusions as to its permanence and prominence
for the RCA. However, as a congregation we believe that the adoption of this
new confession has placed us in the unenviable position of having to confess a
confession against the better judgment of our own consciences. The only alternative we see is to seek a new
confessional home where we are able to serve with confessional integrity. As a church that highly values confessional
integrity the Belhar Confession is a
significant concern and motivation for our petition to withdraw.
The denomination’s response to
homosexuality
The issue of homosexuality will be a central issue in church
ministry today and in the coming decades. This is not simply a matter of
“getting a position right.” As a congregation we are ministering to loved ones,
friends, and family. We know people who struggle with same sex attraction. We
feel that we must be clear in our convictions and gracious to those who are affected by same sex attraction (SSA). Unfortunately we feel that the clarity we
seek is being undermined by the actions of the Reformed Church in America, and
our ability to delicately minister to people affected by SSA is undermined by
our deep-seated desire to promote clarity within the Reformed Church in
America.
This issue is extremely important and extremely
sensitive. It is extremely important
because the Scriptures are exceedingly clear (as is the testimony of the
historic and global church) concerning the Lord’s desire for human
sexuality. Paul makes clear, under the
inspiration of the Spirit, that homosexuality is among a list of sins that lead
to death—yet an increasing number within the Reformed Church in America
(particularly in our seminaries) are blessing homosexual relationships and in
effect saying “peace, peace” when there is no peace. We can no longer in good conscience continue
in fellowship with those false teachers who would lead people to believe that
God blesses the very sin which is destroying them.
The issue of same sex attraction is extremely sensitive
because it affects families within our own congregation. We have people, undoubtedly more people than
we know of, who struggle against attraction to members of the same sex. We want to be extremely gracious to them, we
want to help them to see the beauty of God’s design for marriage and seek
healing and restoration in Christ. We
want to walk faithfully alongside the young man whose desires simply do not go
away, and comfort him as he contemplates a life of dying to himself and living
for Christ. We want to graciously offer
love and support to the young woman who chooses to leave a homosexual lifestyle
because she has come to Christ. We do not want to imply whatsoever that
these precious members of our congregation are the enemy, but we fear that this
is exactly what comes across when so often we are forced to deal with the issue
of the RCA’s increasing lack of clarity and obedience on this very issue.
We believe that the denomination’s response to this issue
has not only been inadequate but has come to be unfaithful. Worse than that, it has come to be
detrimental to our local ministry. Though the RCA has made pronouncements, we
have not lived up to them. We have outlined positions, but not enforced them.
More troubling, we have increasingly adopted a “live and let live” approach
that undermines the integrity of past statements and results in a radically
confused witness and ministry to the sexually broken and their families.
Here are the factors that lead us to this conclusion:
Limited
Effect of Repeated Statements on Biblical Sexuality
Since the 1970s, the
RCA has officially endorsed the Bible’s teaching on homosexuality—of course it
was the implied position since the RCA’s inception since it is the position of
the Scriptures and the universal position of the historic church:
In 1978, the General Synod approved a
paper entitled “Homosexuality: A Biblical and Theological Appraisal.” The
paper stated clearly that “Paul’s rejection of homosexual activity is beyond
question” and “we cannot affirm homosexual behavior.” The paper concluded,
“Heterosexuality is not only normal; it is normative. Homosexual acts are
contrary to the will of God for human sexuality.” (MGS 1978: 233-39)
In 1980, General Synod voted to adopt a
resolution “To bring to the awareness of RCA members, congregations, classes,
and synods competent programs and persons which can successfully help the
practicing homosexual and lesbian, minister or layperson, overcome his or her
homosexual behavior.” (MGS 1980: 97)
In 1990, the General Synod adopted
R-11: “To adopt as the position of the Reformed Church in America that the
practicing homosexual lifestyle is contrary to scripture, while at the same
time encouraging love and sensitivity towards such persons as fellow human
beings” (MGS 1990: 461)
In 1995, the General Synod approved
that a faithful summary of the RCA position on homosexuality includes, among
other statements, that “Homosexual behavior is not God’s intended expression of
sexuality.”
In 2004, the General Synod adopted
R-92: “To affirm that marriage is properly defined as the union of one man and
one woman, to the exclusion of all others.” (MGS 2004: 332)
In 2012, the General Synod adopted R-56
“While compassion, patience, and loving support should be shown to all those
who struggle with same-sex desires, the General Synod reaffirms our official
position that homosexual behavior is a sin according to the Holy Scriptures,
therefore any person, congregation, or assembly which advocates homosexual
behavior or provides leadership for a service of same-sex marriage or a similar
celebration has committed a disciplinable offense”
In spite of these statements, a growing and influential
movement within the RCA is reinterpreting Scripture and pressing for full
affirmation and inclusion of LGBTQ lifestyles.
They continue in false teaching without discipline though their teaching
leads to death.
Consider the Norm Kansfield incident. In 2004, Rev. Dr. Norm
Kansfield, a Professor of Theology and the President of New Brunswick
Theological Seminary, married his daughter, Ann, to another woman. In 2005, he
was disciplined by General Synod. At this same Synod, “new business” contained
an item labeled “Engage in Dialogue or Hold Us Accountable, Too.” The letter
stated:
We believe that the Church of Jesus
Christ, full of the Spirit, should bless covenantal same-sex relationships, as
it does heterosexual relationships. We believe committed same-sex relationships
are not sinful, but rather a blessing from God. We believe that the Reformed
Church in America ought to confess its sinfulness in adhering for too long to
an oppressive position on homosexuality and ought to seek the forgiveness of
its lesbian, gay, bi-sexual and transgendered brothers and sisters.
It included more than 150 signatures, including dozens of
RCA ministers, scores of elders and deacons, and several professors at RCA
institutions. (MGS 2005: 378-81). Currently, Rev. Kansfield has been fully
reinstated as a Minister in the RCA (October 18, 2011). A few days after
reinstatement he gave a lecture at Central Reformed in Grand Rapids entitled
“An Uncomplicated Theology for Same Sex Marriage.” Ann Kansfield and her
partner are currently serving as pastors at an RCA church.
Today, through the Formula-of-Agreement, churches within our
denomination are being served by “married,” same-sex couples and celebrating
same-sex “marriages.” Consider this statement from an RCA Church’s website:
Tonight the New York State Senate voted
in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage. The consistory of the Greenpoint
Reformed Church has voted to encourage committed same-sex couples to
prayerfully consider marriage, and pledge our support to couples wishing to get
married in our church. If you would like to be married at the Greenpoint
Reformed Church or would like one of our ministers to officiate at your
wedding, please email us. . . .
In one article, reporting on a same-sex “wedding” in an RCA
church, we read:
I regularly attend Middle Collegiate
Church where our Pastor, a fierce advocate for Marriage Equality, invited us to
share our commitment along with two other gay male couples a week later, on
July 31, 2011. Our families came to that ceremony where, in front of an
affirming church community, three homosexual couples renewed their spiritual
commitment through marriage.[8]
At last count, “Room for All” has 24 churches on its roster,[9]
including Hope Church in Holland, MI, home of several Western Theological
Seminary and Hope College community members. Besides the churches listed on
“Roster of Affirming Churches in the RCA,” many other congregations provide
support to this advocacy group, including two churches in the North Grand
Rapids Classis which hosted RFA gatherings—Central Reformed[10]
in Grand Rapids and The Community in Ada.[11]
Room for All is an open, influential and active presence in our denomination.
Additionally, many prominent denominational figures have
argued for an open and affirming position. Professor David Meyers’ book What God has Joined Together and Prof.
James Brownson’s The Bible Gender and
Sexuality represent works that are radically out of step with Scripture and
our historic positions. Commenting on Prof. Brownson’s book, WTS President Rev.
Dr. Timothy Brown said:
I have the utmost respect for Jim’s
scholarship and work as a professor of New Testament and as a General Synod
Professor of Theology...While I agree with much of what Jim writes in his new
book, I do not ultimately affirm the trajectory of his vision as it relates to
same-sex relationships. Yet, I will argue strongly for Jim’s right to write
this book... (The Commons, Winter
2013, p 4)
While it might feel comforting to hear that Dr. Brown does
not “ultimately affirm the trajectory” of Dr. Brownson’s book, it should be a
cold comfort. In our opinion, when the most prominent intellectual of our
denomination is given enthusiastic cover by one of the most beloved voices in
our denomination, there is little to celebrate. The General Synod Professors
should be primarily concerned, in our opinion, with the proper teaching of the
truth of God’s Word, not with academic exercises or personal preferences. We are greatly discouraged by Dr. Brown’s
defense of false teaching within the seminary.
Former General Secretary Wes Granberg-Michaelson commented:
This study opens a door, through
rigorous biblical interpretation, that could welcome those in same-sex
relationships into the full life, ministry and witness of the church.
Personally, I find his biblical arguments persuasive.
To sum up:
In spite of statements stretching back
to the 1970s, pro-LGBT teaching and practice continues to grow.
Advocacy groups like Room for All
receive increasing support from significant sectors of our denomination
Pro-LGBT teaching is embraced and
promoted at both our RCA seminaries. We
can no longer support our seminaries in good conscience through yearly
assessments when part of that support, given by faithful and sacrificing
members of our congregation, goes to the very men and women who are propagating
this sort of false teaching.
It would seem a denomination that
claims to hold a Scriptural understanding of homosexuality is left only one way
forward in the face of such an unscriptural movement of office bearers and
teachers: discipline.
Since
discipline seems to be an impossibility we have found a “third way.”
The “third way” approach insists that the RCA should allow
classes to determine how to handle the matter. This has been our de facto
approach, since cross-classis discipline is practically impossible within our
church order (with limited exceptions). Recently, the “third way” has been
advocated as a strategy for unity by our two past presidents of General Synod
and our former General Secretary.
In her 2012 General Synod President’s Report, Lisa VanderWal
commented:
…here is where we are. On one pole is
the belief that to be faithful to Christ, to the church, and to the Scripture,
we must declare homosexuality to be contrary to God’s design for human sexuality,
denounce it as sin, and therefore render it unacceptable for members of the
body of Christ. On a second pole is the belief that to be faithful to Christ,
to the church, and to the gospel, we must reach out to all people, regardless
of their sexual orientation; further, that this is indicated in Scripture by
the radical nature of grace and the inclusivity of the gospel of Christ
redeeming all things (see Acts 10 and 11, for example)…. I
am firmly convinced that if we, as the RCA, are going to find a way through
this morass of contradictory beliefs, we must find a third way forward. I say
this because all signs point to the fact that we will not all come to agreement
on this issue—nor is this issue a reason to splinter the unity of the church of
Christ…. The grace and love of Christ compel us to find a different
way forward, a third way of patience and humility that allows other believers
space to live out their faithfulness to Christ, to the church, to the
Scriptures, and to the wider society in the ways in which God calls them. Our
order allows this through the classes that live and work in vastly diverse
regions of our denomination.
In his memoir, Unexpected
Destinations, former General Secretary Wes Granberg-Michaelson comments:
In the end, the church’s debate over
homosexuality revolves around a very narrow question. If a couple of the same
sex are committed publicly to a monogamous, lifelong relationship, should they,
in the privacy of their bedroom, be celibate or sexually expressive? I understand
that there are different convictions around that matter. But what I don’t
understand is why those differences should rupture fellowship between brothers
and sisters in the body of Christ.
It seems completely mistaken that this
narrow ethical difference become a church-dividing matter in the Anglican
communion, or should alter how Rome has fellowship with historic Protestants,
or should cause Lutherans to break their bonds of communion with one another,
or should cause anyone to question whether they can maintain their vow to
fellowship and unity in the Reformed Church in America. (223)
In an interview for Perspectives
journal, Granberg-Michaelson made similar comments:
One of the saddest moments was the
trial of Norm Kansfield. This isn't to say anything about where one would stand
on the questions that were adjudicated in that trial. But having the highest
body of the Reformed Church in America consumed in an actual trial represented
to me that we had failed. We had not found a way to resolve the differences,
short of this radical action. We had 100 inquiries from press around the
country and even beyond the country, who wanted to hear and see the church in
this unflattering situation. It was like the last scene in the world I would
want for the RCA.
After the verdict I knew that the next
day General Synod would have to make choices about whether they were going to
go down the line of seeking to draw lines in the sand. To decide who was going
to be "in" or "out" around this issue. Or were we going to
go in another direction? I remember in the middle of the night feeling I had to
say something to warn the church about going in a direction that, in my
judgment, would only lead to further tension and division and disruption. It
would take us away from our mission. I think, in fact, we did turn in another
direction since then…
I actually feel reasonably optimistic.
I think that the RCA has made the decision, really since the Kansfield trial,
that this is an issue we're going to talk about rather than vote on. We're
going to continue to seek discernment around rather than to write resolutions
around. Most important, I think we've decided that this is not the question
that's going to cause us to draw a line in the sand, to raise this question to
status confessionis. When I look at other denominations that have gone in the
direction of forcing this as a constitutional question, the outcomes I see are
essentially no-win. I see people being divided. I see congregations leaving. I
think the RCA is taking a different path and saying, "We've held a
position on homosexuality for some time, but we've also said this is a question
where we need to listen to one another and we need to be in dialogue with one
another.”[12]
General Synod 2013 seems to have moved the RCA further towards
this “third way” approach. Consider:
In
his President’s Report, Tom Smith indicated that talk about “lines in the sand”
was “troubling,” commenting:
Can we live in
unity, purity, and peace when we draw lines in the sand? Must we live by ultimatums?
Last year General Synod president Lisa Vander Wal spoke of hearing the outer
poles of the denomination both threaten to leave the RCA if things went ‘the
wrong way.’ The same words have come to me, classic ‘if-then’ statements: If
this or that happens (or doesn’t happen), then we can no longer be a part of
the RCA.As we move into the future, will we be all about positional statements,
staking out territory, drawing lines in the sand—and all within the body of
Christ?! Toward fellow believers? To me this is very troubling. (MGS2013, 28)
The
case of Dr. Ursula Cargill, a gay woman credentialed in the Universal
Fellowship of Metropolitan Community Churches and ordained by the Classis of
New Brunswick, was sent back to the Regional Synod of Mid-Atlantics, which had
already voted to confirm the classis decision. (MGS2013, 346)
The
“Way Forward” committee, appointed in 2012, reported back, indicating, in
essence, that the RCA should articulate a definitive statement about our
position and then open the door to a period for peaceful withdrawal or
recovenanting. Instead, the General
Synod voted to approve a measure that moves us in the opposite direction:
R-21: To instruct the General Synod Council to appoint a diverse working
group representative of the
constituencies of the RCA and the varying understandings within the
Reformed Church in America regarding sexual orientation and gender identity to
identify, design, and/or develop resources for use in congregations and other
RCA settings that will encourage grace-filled conversations among those holding
varying understandings; and further, To identify, design, and/or develop
resources for use in congregations and other RCA settings to assist the RCA in
the development of strategies to preserve unity, purity, and peace. (MGS2013, 115)
This recommendation offers Room for All an officially
sanctioned “place at the table.” In light of R-21, it seems churches may
continue to teach and advocate pro-LGBTQ theology as one welcome perspective in
the RCA. R-21 appears to call for those on various sides of this issue to
coexist and develop “strategies to preserve unity, purity, and peace.”
4.
Undoubtedly, one of the most troubling actions taken at General Synod 2013 was R-52:
R-52: To acknowledge that in 2012 we, the General Synod, in the
proceedings that led to the adoption of R-28, demonstrated a lack of decorum
and civility, and a general atmosphere in which delegates were not always
treating one another as sisters and brothers in Christ; and further, to acknowledge
that in 2012 we, the General Synod, usurped the constitutional authority
reserved for the classes when, in R-28, we stated that “any person,
congregation, or assembly which advocates homosexual behavior or provides
leadership for a service of same-sex marriage or a similar celebration has
committed a disciplinable offense.” (MGS2013,
179)
Both ministers and an elder from First Reformed Church were
present for General Synod 2012 and remember things differently. Many, perhaps
most, of the delegates who voted on R-52 were not present at GS 2012. It is not
clear how they could comment on a “lack of decorum and civility.” It is
accurate to note that some procedural confusion arose in 2012. This was not due
to a lack of decorum on the part of the delegates, but instead because the
President repeatedly attempted to table a proposal she personally opposed. This
led to a lengthy delay in the proceedings before delegates were allowed time
for discussion and voting on the substance of R-28. In passing R-52, General
Synod 2013 reprimanded General Synod 2012, which had affirmed a biblical
response to pro-LGBT teaching/teachers. It also indicated that any attempt at
General Synod to recognize that unbiblical teaching is “disciplinable,” is a
“usurpation of power.” This move, in effect, institutionalized the “third way”
approach.
5.
To be sure, some might object that General Synod also voted to have a new paper
prepared:
R-54: To instruct the Commission on Theology to draft a paper on human
sexuality from a Reformed perspective to be presented to General Synod 2015. (MGS2013, 181)
But we are convinced another paper revisiting our position
is extraneous. Another round of dialogue is not required. Consider this quote
describing a General Synod:
The synod ...unanimously approved a
[recommendation] which calls ‘the RCA members and churches to a process of
repentance for failing to live up to its own pastoral statements on
homosexuality, and to a process of prayer, learning, and growth in ministry on
issues surrounding the question of homosexuality. Finally, it asks the church's
Commission on Theology to develop a study guide and collect models for ministry
that will help local congregations grapple with their own calls to minister in
this area.’ Moments after approving this recommendation the delegates sang the
doxology.[13]
The Synod described here was convened in 1994. At a certain
point, a body must move from dialogue to deliberation to decision. It appears
that this General Synod did make a
decision: To define strategies for us to live together in “unity, purity, and
peace” with room for all perspectives.
Summary
Our consciences
compel us to reject the so called “third way” for two reasons.
First,
we reject the continual caricature that we are living at one end of an extreme
pole that does not want to reach out to all people because of their sexual
choices and behavior. The truth is that
we too believe in the radical nature of grace, and we too reach out to all
people. We view the gospel as having
transformational power in the lives of believers; transformation always
involves repentance.
Second,
the “third way” presupposes the idea that homosexuality is something that we
should all learn to live with as brothers and sisters in Christ. This is simply not possible. So long as these two positions exist in the
church we will never have unity and peace, nor should we. First Corinthians 6:14b states, “What
fellowship has light with darkness?” and 1 John 1:6-7 says, “If we say we have
fellowship with him while we walk in darkness, we lie and do not practice the
truth. But if we walk in the light, as
he is in the light, we have fellowship with one another, and the blood of Jesus
his Son cleanses us from all sin.” We
will never resolve these differences without repentance, nor should we. We absolutely should be drawing a line in the
sand. This is an issue of truth versus
lie, light versus darkness, not a personal conviction versus someone else’s
personal conviction. The “third way” may
be warmly received by the world, but it is not biblical. It is not of Jesus. We cannot continue to walk the “third way” in
good conscience.
Conclusion
We understand that many who share our interpretation of
Scripture might feel that our assessment of the RCA situation is too bleak, but
we believe that this year’s General Synod represented the final step over the
line for our congregation. In our estimation, General Synod 2013 voted to grant
the Room for All agenda a sanctioned “place at the table” in our denominational
life. Every action on the LGBT issue at General Synod 2013 suggests we will
continue to be an increasingly “open and affirming” denomination. We can no
longer in good conscience be part of a family that has adopted a strategic commitment
to diversity on this question.
The removal of the “conscience clauses”
While General Synod 2013 voted for diversity on the question
of homosexuality, it voted down diversity on the question of the ordination of
women. Amid unsubstantiated claims that the conscience clauses have been
improperly used to block or discourage women’s ordination, the General Synod
opted to remove a provision that has allowed complementarian[14]
elders and pastors to operate in good conscience, serving faithfully with their
egalitarian brothers and sisters for three decades.
The conscience clauses allowed ministers to exist within an
egalitarian body without transgressing their conscience. At minimum,
complementarian pastors were not bound by duty or dictate to take part in an
ordination service. The conscience clauses represented more than a technical
dispensation, however; they represented our denomination’s commitment to
minister together despite our differences on this important issue. It is
difficult to be sure of all the ramifications of this decision, but we believe
the following issues arise:
Our
Elders and Pastors are Faced with a Crisis of Conscience
In their ordination vows, pastors agree to “conduct the work
of the church in an orderly way and according to the Liturgy and the Book of
Church Order.” Once, they could make these vows in good conscience because the BCO made room for disagreement on this
issue. Since that clear constitutional allowance was removed, pastors and
pastoral candidates who refuse on biblical grounds to take part in ordaining a
woman are open to charges of breaking their ordination vows. They could be
charged with standing in contradiction to the order codified in the BCO, an obviously egalitarian document.
Even if such charges are never leveled, their own consciences could certainly
accuse them.
Our liturgy, which carries constitutional weight, clearly
states in the order for installation, “Christ alone is the source of all
Christian ministry, through the ages calling
men and women to serve.” We
unconditionally and wholeheartedly embrace the truth that women are called to
serve in the church. However, the very
context of the event in regards to the ordination of a minister of word and
sacrament heavily implies that the liturgy intends to speak about ordained
ministry. When we do ordination services
at First Reformed Church we simply hope that the presiding officer will omit
“and women” out of respect for our consciences.
Our consciences are troubled as we are pressed between the order of the
RCA, an order to which we have committed ourselves, and the Word of God. Of course we must follow the Word of God, yet
we remain conflicted in our conscience in regards to our obligations to our own
ordination vows.
Our
Convictions are at Odds with the Direction of the RCA
Our theological convictions stand squarely in contradiction
to the General Synod Council “Women in Ministry and Mission” ends policy which
states:
“The RCA will be a fellowship of
congregations in which all women are equipped and empowered to fully exercise
their gifts in the life, ministry, mission, and offices of the church.”[15]
While complementarian pastors and churches certainly seek to
develop and encourage sisters to minister in the church and culture, they do
not believe this ministry extends to all offices of the church. Thus, on an
issue of basic theological and practical ministry significance, we stand in
opposition to our denominational practice.
Complementarian
ministerial candidates may face significant hurdles in gaining a certificate of
fitness for ministry.
In February 2011, the MFCA blog had an article defining the
“RCA lens,” specifically defining views that might be a “poor fit” for the RCA:
What does seem to be a debate for the
RCA is the way a number of our candidates and pastors have adopted the
perspectives of the New Calvinism. Our certification committees have
encountered individuals who claim teachers such as Mark Driscoll, John Piper
and Wayne Grudem as having the most significant impact on their perspective.
Labeled as “conservative,” “reformed,” and “evangelical,” much of what these
modern day gurus teach is valuable, but does not accurately reflect the RCA
perspective (lens). The MFCA is thus confronted with the tensions created when
candidates have positions around scripture, baptism and women in ministry that
do not line up with positions adopted by the RCA. Extreme positions held by candidates may even
result in situations where the candidate is deemed a poor “fit” for RCA
ministry.
Rev. Kappers has discussed with the consistory specific
cases in which he and other complementarian/conservative ministerial candidates
have felt unduly burdened and discouraged in the process of gaining a CFM
through the MFCA process. With the removal of the clauses, such students are
left with no confidence of fair treatment. This will almost certainly lead to a
much shallower, or even empty, pool of candidates who share our convictions on
this issue. We will not call men who do
not share our convictions on this issue to be pastors at First Reformed Church. However, there are almost no men who are
willing to risk thousands of dollars and years of time attempting to enter a
denomination that seems to have made it clear that they are no longer welcome. We simply do not have confidence that we will
find appropriate leadership in the future.
The
RCA does not appear to have, or desire to attain, a welcoming future for
complementarians.
One of the chief spokespersons for this amendment said as
much, commenting,
“I
believe that we have more integrity as a denomination if we just say ‘we ordain
women.' And if you can’t live within a system that ordains women, then there
are a lot of denominations, and perhaps this isn’t the one for you.”[16]
It is difficult to see how congregations dedicated to
building ministries and planting churches that winsomely commend a
complementarian message can continue to have a productive place in the RCA.
Conclusion
We understand that the RCA has held an egalitarian position
on ordination for three decades now. For those three decades, it also validated
the right to exercise conscience. The removal of the conscience clauses
significantly impacts the ministry of complementarians within the RCA. It not
only affects present status, but future hopes for growth and multiplication.
Holding these actions in juxtaposition with the increasingly welcoming actions
of General Synod towards those promoting homosexuality and the concern is only
amplified. We simply cannot continue to
serve in a denomination that makes no official allowance for our position on
ordination, and we have difficulty seeing First Church as a thriving ministry
for decades to come without access to appropriate ministerial leadership.
Biblical Inerrancy
Brothers and sisters, at the root of our concerns with the
Reformed Church in America is the stark reality that we simply do not share in
a common biblical hermeneutic with the majority of our denomination’s leadership,
pastors, or seminary professors. This
should already be evident as you have read through the previous three
points. But, we desire to make it
explicit here for the sake of clarity.
As a consistory we whole-heartedly embrace the truth that the
Bible is the inerrant Word of God. We
believe this is taught within the Scriptures themselves when the Lord says:
“The words of the Lord are pure words,
like silver refined in a furnace on the ground, purified seven times.” (Psalm 12:6)
“The law of the Lord is perfect,
reviving the soul; the testimony of the Lord is sure, making wise the
simple.” (Psalm 19:7)
“Every word of God proves true; he is a
shield to those who take refuge in him.” (Proverbs 30:5)
Beyond these statements we believe that the Word of God has
as its primary author the Lord himself in the person of the Holy Spirit. We believe that the Word shares in the purity
and perfection of its primary author.
“All Scripture is breathed out by God
and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in
righteousness.” (2 Tim. 3:16)
“For no prophesy was ever produced by
the will of man, but men spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy
Spirit.” (2 Peter 1:21)
We believe that this is the authorial intent of our
confessions as well:
“True faith is not only a knowledge and
conviction that everything God
reveals in his Word is true…”
(Heidelberg Catechism A. 21)
“Therefore we call such writings holy
and divine Scriptures” (Belgic Art. 3)
“We receive all these books and these
only as holy and canonical…and we believe without a doubt all things contained
in them.” (Belgic Art. 5)
We agree with and hold to the Chicago Statement on Biblical
Inerrancy. Which states:
“Being wholly and verbally God-given,
Scripture is without error or fault in all its teaching, no less in what it
states about God's acts in creation, about the events of world history, and
about its own literary origins under God, than in its witness to God's saving
grace in individual lives.”[17]
Brothers and sisters, this is not the position of the
Reformed Church in America. The RCA has
official positions on Scripture that are strong in some ways, but the lack of a
concrete foundation of inerrancy has left the door open to a significant, and harmful,
amount of theological diversity and hermeneutical oddities.
In fact there is an incredible diversity of thought
regarding exactly what it means to confess that we believe the Bible to be the
Word of God and the perfect doctrine of salvation.[18] What does it mean for the Scriptures to
contain the perfect doctrine of salvation within an imperfect document?
Scripture is, as we so often remark, the only rule for faith
and life. Yet there are extremely
diverse understandings of what the Scriptures teach. This greatly disparate understanding does not
promote unity, purity, or peace. We feel
that we could be far more effective if we were to join a denomination which
shares our fundamental understandings concerning biblical inerrancy and
authority. The Presbyterian Church in
America offers us precisely that opportunity.
Conclusion: Answering Objections
In our own process we have dealt with the following
objections as we have wrestled with the painful decision of whether to file
this petition or not. Please accept the
answered objections as our attempt to relay answers to frequently asked
questions, and not an attempt at preempting conversation with the classis that
may arise around these topics.
If
we really care about these issues, then we should remain and lend our voice to
the debate.
We have. Our church has actively supported the ministry of
RCA Integrity, submitted overtures to classis and networked with likeminded
congregations. We have served as delegates, taken part in student exams, served
on committees and faithfully attended classis meetings. Others have stood with
us, and for that we are grateful.
But it is time to acknowledge reality: Because of the
significant changes that have taken place in the last few years, our
congregation, which has remained robustly and fruitfully rooted in the same
doctrine and convictions for 152 years, has come to occupy outlier status in
the RCA. The ideas we embrace gladly—e.g. complementarianism, traditional
marriage, confessionalism, and inerrancy—are frequently painted as the “extreme
right wing” of the denomination. For us, an endless campaign to push things
“our way” will only result in continued frustration for our congregation, the
classis, and the denomination at large. We desire to move on rather than foster
disunity.
The
adoption of Transformed and Transforming
represents a new hope for the denomination.
Transformed
and Transforming could be inspirational in a
denomination that wasn’t as theologically mixed as ours. In the RCA, its power
to produce gospel-centered growth is limited. By issuing a call to be
“Transformed and Transforming” without first issuing a call to biblical fidelity
in all areas of life, we are acquiescing to an untenably large range of
doctrinal diversity which will only increase as each constituent part of the
RCA transforms further according to their own ideas and preferences. Transformed
and Transforming will only push us further into an era that already mirrors
the dark times of the judges. Everyone
will increasingly do what is right in their own eyes.
The
RCA is engaged in an aggressive church planting effort; with time and patience
the evangelical wing will grow enough to effect change.
The problem here is a basic numbers game. Even if Illiana-Florida classis was
universally committed to transforming the Reformed Church in regards to human
sexuality, biblical inerrancy, biblical manhood and womanhood, and the Belhar
Confession the fact remains that planting churches within a classis is a
relatively useless strategy for denominational transformation. To transform the RCA will require gaining the
requisite 2/3 of the classes approval for constitutional changes. Planting churches in our own classis will not
help this endeavor whatsoever. In fact
as we can already see making your classis larger is not the strategy at
all—having many smaller classes would be much more beneficial.
For instance: the
Conscience Clauses were removed from the Book of Church Order through a 31-14
vote among the classes. That may seem
like overwhelming support until you realize that though the removal obtained
approval of 68.88% of the classes those classes only account for 57.3% of the
RCA’s total membership. The three
largest classes voted against the removal.
In fact as we look carefully at the hope for constitutional
change within the Reformed Church in America we quickly realize that the
process grossly misrepresents the mind of the RCA as a whole and eliminates all
hope of the sort of reform which would cleanse our consciences in regards to
our relationship with the RCA.[19]
Ministers
and churches should never leave a denomination, otherwise they are guilty of
disunity.
We simply disagree with this. While there is much to be said for remaining
faithful to your convictions and being a part of something even if that
something doesn’t share in all your convictions, we also feel that the time has
come where we are no longer able to serve effectively and in good
conscience. Serving contrary to
conscience is not something that we feel is right and it violates the very
spirit of the Belgic Confession, particularly Article 32. Therefore we are petitioning the classis to graciously
transfer us long before we feel we would be in danger of being removed from the
denomination.
In a very real sense, the terms of our covenant relationship
with the RCA have been changed. The RCA
is a markedly different denomination than three years ago or even 9 months
ago. The removal of the conscience
clauses is tremendously significant for us, as is the General Synod’s decision
to give RfA a sanctioned seat at the table. The adoption of the Belhar Confession
will have a profound, long-term affect on the nature of the RCA. Already, we’re
required to provide an annual report on how we have incorporated “the Belhar Confession and its principles of unity, reconciliation, and
justice” into our congregational life and witness (MGS 2013:139).
While the RCA has changed, and will continue to change, we
feel that we are not changing along with it, nor are we comfortable with the
trajectory upon which it has embarked.
As the denomination moves forward in an attempt to build a sense of
unity through Transformed and
Transforming we do not want to hinder its unity or compromise our own
convictions. Rather than remain a
perpetual irritant we ask to be released to a denomination where we will find
unity, purity, and peace with brothers and sisters who share our values and
beliefs. We ask to be released to a
denomination where we can, and will, Lord willing, joyfully serve in good
conscience for many years to come.
The Presbyterian Church in America: A
More Effective Ministry
The Book of Church Order expects that a church will desire
to withdraw to join a denomination in which it feels the effectiveness of
Christ’s church will be enhanced. This
is precisely the situation we present to you.
The PCA’s Confessions
Brothers and Sisters, we wholeheartedly embrace the
Westminster Confession of Faith and its Catechisms. We find it to be clear and fully expect it
will be appropriately helpful in guiding the theological identity of our
congregation. We may have exceptions to
the document, but they do not strike at its vitals or the system of its
doctrine. We look forward to entering
into a confessional denomination where there is a high level of theological
unity. We love the reformed faith, we
love the truth of the Word of God, and we long for the day when we can serve
joyfully alongside of other brothers and sisters who fully embrace the
doctrines of grace and share our confessional commitments.
While one of our frustrations in the RCA has been the lack
of clarity concerning what it means to subscribe to the confessions, the Book
of Church Order in the PCA lays out clear guidelines as to what exceptions may
be taken to the confession. Only those
exceptions which are more than semantic but not striking at the vitals of
religion or the system of doctrine contained within the Confession (and
Catechisms) may be allowed by a presbytery.
All exceptions must be made in writing and approved by the
presbytery. All actions of the presbytery
regarding those exceptions are then open to review by the General Assembly and
other presbyteries.[20] There is genuine theological accountability
within the PCA which we feel will enhance our own effectiveness in ministry.
We anticipate the PCA’s confessional integrity to increase
our effectiveness in a number of ways:
The
confessional integrity of the PCA will enhance our ministry effectiveness by
giving us confidence that those we partner with locally, nationally, and
globally share our convictions and theological commitments. We will feel free to use resources developed by
the PCA, support PCA missionaries, and partner with PCA multiplication efforts
because we can have a high level of certainty that those resources,
missionaries, and church plants will consistently share our values.
The
confessional integrity of the PCA will enhance our ministry effectiveness by
ensuring that candidates we call to minister to our congregation are properly
vetted and examined by an equipped body which shares our theological
convictions.
The
confessional integrity of the PCA will enhance our ministry effectiveness by
allowing us to focus more of our efforts towards proclaiming, spreading, and
promoting the work of the reformed faith rather than focusing those efforts
towards laboring for its authority and place within our own denomination.
The
confessional integrity of the PCA will enhance our ministry effectiveness by
returning us to a position where we can confess each of the standards of our
denomination in good conscience.
The PCA’s Position on Biblical Manhood
and Womanhood
We have already expressed how we have felt out of step with
the RCA in regards to what it means to be a man or woman in the church for
quite some time. We believe the
Scriptures teach a complementarian view of men and women. This complementarity
has implications for sexuality, the home, and the church. The PCA’s position on gender, manhood, and
womanhood matches the position the Scriptures teach.
We firmly believe, as already stated, that women are called
to serve the Lord Jesus Christ with their full efforts within the church. They
are called to know Christ and make him known, they are full of his Spirit, they
are called to bear witness to his gospel, they are called to make much of his
glory. We believe the PCA is on the
right track when their women’s ministry (WIC) has as their stated goal, “that every woman know Christ personally and
be committed to extending His kingdom in her life, home, church, community, and
throughout the world.”[21]
We also enthusiastically embrace the language of the PCA’s
BCO which states that an elder is a man.[22] We long for peace on this issue. We have for some time now felt as though we
have been portrayed as the extremists of the RCA. As if somehow believing what we believe means
we can appropriately be relegated to the margins of the denomination’s
life. We long to be with other elders,
ministers, and churches that share our commitment to biblical manhood and
womanhood and who will support us as together, men and women, we serve the Lord
with gladness in the many diverse ways in which we are called to do so.
We anticipate the PCA’s position on women’s ordination and
biblical manhood and womanhood will enhance our ministry effectiveness in a
number of ways:
We
believe the PCA’s position on women’s ordination and biblical manhood and
womanhood will enhance our ministry to the women of our church. We currently do not use any of the resources
provided to us by the RCA. We feel they
are not only unhelpful, but that they are in fact generally unfaithful and work
directly counter to the teaching of the Word of God in our church. Here at First Church we look forward to
blessing our women with the teaching of the Word of God through resources
produced by WIC, and other organizations, which are produced specifically to
bless and minister to the women of our congregation.
We
believe the PCA’s position on women’s ordination and biblical manhood and
womanhood will enhance the ministry of our pastors. Our pastors have for some
time been engaged in the debate over women’s ordination in the RCA. We have seen them exasperated at what seems
to be the increasingly hostile attitude of the RCA towards men and women of our
conviction, and we long for the day when they can have peace on this issue.
We
believe the PCA’s position on women’s ordination and biblical manhood and
womanhood will enhance the ministry of First Reformed Church by allowing us to
serve and minister again in good conscience.
We simply cannot affirm the clearly egalitarian teaching of the Reformed
Church in America’s Book of Church Order.
We cannot swear to uphold it, or swear loyalty to a denomination which
is committed to it when we fundamentally disagree with its assumptions and
teachings concerning what it means to be a woman in Christ’s church.
The PCA’s Position on Human Sexuality
Unlike the RCA’s confessions where homosexual activity is
only implicitly rejected (although certainly the authors of those documents
would have accepted biblical human sexuality as being between a married man and
his one wife) the Westminster Larger
Catechism explicitly mentions homosexual behavior as being forbidden by the
7th commandment.
Q. 139. What are the sins forbidden in
the seventh commandment?
A. The sins forbidden in the seventh
commandment, besides the neglect of the duties required, are adultery,
fornication, rape, incest, sodomy, and all unnatural lusts; all unclean
imaginations, thoughts, purposes, and affections, all corrupt or filthy
communications, or listening thereunto; wanton looks, impudent or light
behavior, immodest apparel; prohibiting of lawful, and dispensing with unlawful
marriages; allowing, tolerating, keeping of stews (old English word meaning
houses of prostitution), and resorting to them; entangling vows of single life,
undue delay of marriage, having more wives or husbands than one at the same
time; unjust divorce, or desertion; idleness, gluttony, drunkenness, unchaste
company; lascivious songs, books, pictures, dancings, stage plays; and all
other provocations to, or acts of uncleanness, either in ourselves or others.
(Emphasis added)
This confessional nature adds to the strength of the PCA’s
position. It has often been claimed
within the Reformed Church that there is no explicit forbiddance of
homosexuality in our confessions. This
cannot be claimed in the Presbyterian Church in America.
The PCA, like the RCA, has for many years made clear
statements regarding human sexuality.
However, unlike the RCA, the PCA has never had any church, minister, or
officer directly challenge or rebel against the stated position of the
denomination.
When the PCA is asked for a position on human sexuality this
is the answer it gives,
“The PCA is committed to the sanctity
of human sexual relationships. We believe God’s intent and design in
creation was that male and female would be complementary, that the privilege of
sexual expression would be between a male and female only, and this expression
would be only in the context of marriage. Therefore, any heterosexual or
homosexual behavior or relationship that does not conform to God’s design does
violence to the human spirit and distorts God’s intent for men and women.”[23]
We wholeheartedly embrace this statement. The Presbyterian Church in America shares our
convictions regarding the complementarity of the sexes, the exclusivity of
monogamous sexual relations between a man and his wife, and the sinful (yet
pardonable) nature of all sexual activity which occurs outside the bounds of
heterosexual marriage.
We believe the PCA’s position on human sexuality will
enhance the effectiveness of our ministry in a number of ways:
We
believe the PCA’s position on human sexuality will enhance the effectiveness of
our ministry by giving us peace on this issue.
As with other already mentioned issues we have been on the frontlines of
this conflict for many years. Our
consistory, elders, pastors, and even laypeople have labored long and hard to
promote biblical human sexuality in the RCA.
We have been sufficiently distracted by this too. We have chronicled with shame and dismay the
growth of Room for All, the reinstatement of Rev. Dr. Kansfield, the flippant
way our past presidents and past General Secretary have spoken of what has been
referred to as a “minor ethical issue.”
We have informed the congregation, we have engaged in the process for
reform at the local level, at the classical level, and at the synodical
level. But the beat marches on. We have given as much of our time, energy,
and effort as we feel we can to the RCA on this issue. Our people need our attention more than those
in rebellion against the Word of God in some far off classis. We simply can no longer afford to be
perpetually at odds with others in our own denomination over an issue as
significant and emotionally charged as sexuality.
We
believe the PCA’s position on human sexuality will enhance the effectiveness of
our ministry by allowing us to deal more delicately, pastorally, and
sensitively with our own members who struggle against homosexual desires. Brothers and sisters, this is not an issue
that we are unfamiliar with. We grieve
that in our efforts to promote clarity in the RCA on this issue we may
sometimes deal less pastorally here at home.
We want to love, support, and encourage our brothers and sisters who
struggle with same sex attraction. We
want to see the Lord heal those whom he will heal, and bring comfort to those
who are still afflicted. We want to be
set free from the constant battle over this issue. We want to clearly be an unconditional ally
of those who want to put their sin to death, yet whose temptation continues to
rear its ugly head. We want to be
pastors and elders, not warriors.
However, we cannot stay in the RCA with anything less than a warrior’s
mentality given the apostasy which mars much of our denomination. We ask that you will set us free from this
perpetual battle.
We
believe the PCA’s position on human sexuality will enhance the effectiveness of
our ministry by affirming our convictions regarding the complementarity of the
sexes. We believe that the Lord created
men and that the Lord created women. We
believe that men and women are created equally in the image of God and that
they are given different and complementary roles sexually, domestically, and
ecclesiastically. The PCA affirms that
belief at every level. The PCA views
human sexuality as consistently complementary whereas the RCA officially views
the sexes in an egalitarian light domestically and ecclesiastically, but as
sexually complementary. We are confident
that the PCA’s consistency, and consistency with our own position, will enhance
our ministry to men, women, children, youth, and families.
We
believe the PCA’s position on human sexuality will enhance the effectiveness of
our ministry by giving us a place to serve in good conscience. Those in the PCA
who would rebel against the position of the denomination would be disciplined
in any of its presbyteries. And if, by
some unforeseen happenstance, a presbytery were to neglect to discipline
someone in rebellion against the stated position another presbytery would be
free to bring the issue to light and enact a disciplinary process. Brothers and
sisters, we simply cannot stay in the RCA in good conscience given the open
rebellion that is ongoing; we believe the PCA would offer us a respite from
this exhausting battle which would enhance the effectiveness of our ministry
greatly.
The PCA’s Position on Inerrancy
Unlike the RCA, the PCA confesses to believe in inerrancy.
In fact, a belief in the inerrancy of the Scriptures is required of anyone who
would serve in office. Officers in the
PCA are required to affirm the following question,
“Do you believe the Scriptures of the
Old and New Testaments, as originally given, to be the inerrant Word of God,
the only infallible rule of faith and practice?”[24]
The Presbyterian Church in America is a relatively young
denomination (particularly compared to the RCA) and was formed in large part
out of a desire to have a reformed denomination for whom the inerrancy of the
Scriptures is a core value for all those in the fellowship. The PCA’s official website gives a bit of
background on the birth of the PCA, we suspect that from the following
paragraph you will sense why it is that we feel the PCA is an appropriate
denominational home for us.
“Organized at a constitutional assembly
in December 1973, (the PCA) was first known as the National Presbyterian Church
but changed its name in 1974 to Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). It
separated from the Presbyterian Church in the United States (Southern) in
opposition to the long-developing theological liberalism which denied the deity
of Jesus Christ and the inerrancy and authority of Scripture. Additionally, the
PCA held to the traditional position on the role of women in church offices.”[25]
We are thankful that in our experience with the RCA we have
met very few people who would deny the deity of Jesus Christ. However, as you can see the Presbyterian
Church in America’s birth occurred largely due to matters of conscience very
similar to those we have presented in this petition. Central to those convictions for both the PCA
and for First Church is a belief in the inerrancy of the Word of God.
We believe the PCA’s position on inerrancy will enhance the
effectiveness of our ministry in a number of ways:
We
believe the PCA’s position on inerrancy will enhance the effectiveness of our
ministry by giving us a common hermeneutical foundation with all the other
congregations and officers within our denomination. We have found that the root of so much of our
difficulty within the Reformed Church stems from basic hermeneutical
assumptions about the Bible that are incompatible. We feel that our ministry will be fortified
for years to come if we are permitted to transfer to the PCA where the men we
will call to pastor us, and those responsible for forming those men for service
in Christ’s church, will share our basic understandings about Scripture, its
purity, and its perfection.
We
believe the PCA’s position on inerrancy will enhance the effectiveness of our
ministry because those looking for a congregation committed to inerrancy will
be more likely to join us. As it is
there are many people in our own congregation who are uncomfortable with their
association with the RCA and what it has come to stand for. Those who would be looking for a congregation
that embraces inerrancy will certainly be more likely to covenant with us in
becoming members of our congregation if we are able to be clearer in our
convictions through having more compatible associations.
The PCA: A Good Home
Brothers and sisters, the RCA has been home to us for many
years. At times we have found it to be a
warmly welcoming home, and at other times we have felt like strangers in our
own home. As time has gone on we have
increasingly felt as though the Reformed Church in America is no longer a home
for men like us, and churches like ours.
We grieve over this, but it is not something of our own choosing. Our congregational convictions have remained
constant through the years. While we
grieve, we also look forward with joy to joining the Presbyterian Church in
America because we believe it will be a good home for us.
Friends, the PCA is a faithful denomination. It is full of men and women who love the
Lord, who embrace the Scriptures, who robustly promote and affirm the reformed
faith. The PCA has a special burden for
reaching the lost, for planting churches, and for sending missionaries to the
unreached peoples of the earth. We share
in those commitments. We feel that joining the PCA will liberate us from the
struggles that have consumed us for so long, allowing us more joy and more
fruit in our local ministry.
We know that the PCA is not a perfect denomination. It is full of sinners, redeemed though they
are the effects of sin are still present.
We have labored hard to discern the weaknesses and short-comings of the
Presbyterian Church in America and we have found some just as we expected
to. Yet, we believe that of all the
denominations we researched, and the list was extensive, the Presbyterian
Church in America offers us the best opportunity for maximizing our local
ministry and enabling us to serve the Lord with joy and in good conscience for
generations to come.
We would like to include for you a brief informational sheet
so that you can become familiar with the Presbyterian Church in America. We hope that you will be encouraged by its
work and mission and will come to see why it is that we feel our ministry will
be most effective in fellowship with them.
About
the PCA
Membership:
Communicant membership was 276,642 as of Dec. 31, 2011. Total membership is approaching 400,000.
Presbytery: The local
presbytery we are petitioning to join is the Chicago Metro Presbytery which
currently has 14 churches. Only one of
those churches serves the South Suburbs and NW Indiana. About half of those churches are within the
city limits.
Headquarters:
Lawrenceville, GA.
Churches: The PCA had 1,777 congregations as of 2012.
Ministers: There are just over 4,000 ordained teaching
elders in the PCA.
Formed: Dec. 1973 in Birmingham, AL.
Growth: The PCA has
grown through conversion and transfer each year for the past 30 years.
Affiliations:
National Association of Presbyterian and Reformed Churches (NAPARC), World
Reformed Fellowship, National Association of Evangelicals (NAE).
Institutions:
Covenant College, Lookout Mt., TN.,
Covenant Theological Seminary, St. Louis, MO., Ridge Haven (Camp), Brevard, NC., Reformed University Fellowship.
Dispersion: The PCA
has churches in all 50 states, Canada, Germany, the Cayman Islands, and
Okinawa. There is a major emphasis on
church planting within the PCA, particularly in urban areas.
Demographics: The PCA
is majority white, but with a large segment of Korean congregations (15%), and
smaller but still significant and growing populations of Hispanic and Black
members.
Missions: The PCA
lists 303 missionaries (or missionary couples/families) on its website. This does not include a sizeable number of
missionaries who work in countries where they are not free to declare their
purpose openly.
Reformed History:
NAPARC at one point wanted to merge the CRC and PCA which led to the PCA
having its GA in Grand Rapids more than once.
Conclusion
A concluding summary of why we believe Classis approval of
this petition will be in the best interests of Christ’s Kingdom.
Because
the Book of Church Order defines a
process for withdrawal and our consciences have moved us to engage in it.
We understand that this parting of the ways is painful. We
can attest to that ourselves.
We have prayed fervently. We have shed tears. At the same
time, we do not believe that this difficult process is meant to be an impossible one. Surely the BCO makes this provision because it envisions
that such a step should be achievable.
Our church has walked through a careful process. We have
concluded that we can no longer minister effectively within the denomination.
We have found a denomination that we believe will be a good fit, allowing us to
minister effectively and in good conscience. We hope that you will see this as
clearly as we have seen it and release us to follow the path we believe the
Lord has set out for us.
Because
there is biblical precedent for a peaceful parting of the ways between brothers
and sisters in the Lord.
In his report this summer, General Synod President Tom Smith
commented,
There are critical questions to be
answered. When do we sing in unison and when do we sing in harmony? When does
the classis have responsibility and authority? When can some classes conduct
themselves in ways that are completely different from other classes? What is it
that gives us unity, purity, and peace? Paul and Barnabas parted company in a
very public way, but they both carried the same gospel (Acts 15).[26]
A parting of the ways might be painful, but it can be good.
Sometimes, as in the case of Barnabas and Paul, the best thing is to
acknowledge that the path has split and two who once walked together now strike
out in different ways. Paul pursued his ministry. Barnabas must have done
something right with John Mark, for Paul esteemed him highly later in life (2
Timothy 4:11).
Because
while others might feel called to stay, we genuinely feel compelled to leave.
In Romans 14, Paul discusses the difficult question of
meat-eating and Jewish food laws. He specifically addresses those who feel at
liberty to eat. He warns them to have consideration for the “weaker” brother in
exercising their liberty. Paul concludes with these words:
The faith that you have, keep between
yourself and God. Blessed is the one who has no reason to pass judgment on
himself for what he approves. But whoever has doubts is condemned if he eats,
because the eating is not from faith. For whatever does not proceed from faith
is sin. (Romans 14:22-23)
Commenting on these verses, Douglas Moo notes,
… “faith” here almost certainly has the
same meaning that it has elsewhere in this chapter (vv. 1, 22): “conviction”
stemming from one’s faith in Christ. Paul is not, then, claiming that any act
that does not arise out of a basic trust and dependency on Christ is sinful,
true as that may be. What he here labels “sin,” rather, is any act that does
not match our sincerely held convictions about what our Christian faith allows
us to do and prohibits us from doing…. Violations of the dictates of the
conscience, even when the conscience does not conform perfectly with God’s
will, is sinful….The “strong,” he is suggesting, should not force the “weak” to
eat meat, or drink wine, or ignore the Sabbath, when the “weak” are not yet
convinced that their faith in Christ allows them to do so. For to do so would
be to force them into sin, to put a “stumbling” block in their way. (Moo, Romans, 863-864)
Paul’s point is this: It’s sinful to do something you feel
is sinful. Unless you are convinced in your heart that God approves, you should
avoid it. Don’t violate conscience. For us, the dilemma is clear: Due to the
issues we have outlined above, the conscience of our congregation, ministers,
and consistory is violated. We have come to the conclusion that staying in the
Reformed Church in America is something we simply can no longer do in good
conscience.
As we conclude this petition we reflect, one final time,
upon the position of our consciences. As
we do we are reminded of the words of Martin Luther at the Diet of Worms,
“Unless I can be instructed and convinced with evidence from the
Holy Scriptures or with open, clear and distinct grounds and reasoning—and my
conscience is captive to the Word of God—then I cannot and will not recant,
because it is neither safe nor wise to act against conscience. Here I stand. I
can do no other. So help me God.”
Brothers and sisters, it is not safe
or wise to act against conscience, we hope you will not ask us to do so. We sincerely hope that you will understand
the strength of our conviction and the plight of our consciences and release us
to minister with joy within the bounds of the Presbyterian Church in
America. We ask that you would release
us with all our real and personal property so that our ministry may be
maximally effective, that there will not be bitterness or anger between our
congregation and the classis, and so that the community in which we live will
not be confused by the financial and legal wrangling between believers. We firmly believe that approval of this
petition for withdrawal will result in greater effectiveness of our church,
greater joy for our community, and the growth and strengthening of the Kingdom
of God.
Soli Deo Gloria,
The Consistory of the First Reformed Church, Lansing, IL.
Appendix
Constitutional Reform in the RCA—the
Facts:
There
are 45 Classes.
The
RCA had a total confessing membership of 150,437 as of 2012.
The
RCA gives each classis one vote in determining whether to accept or reject
constitutional amendments.
The
RCA requires 2/3 of the classes to approve of all constitutional changes.
The
largest classis is Zeeland Classis with 10,199 members.
The
smallest classis is Canadian Prairies with 360 confessing members.
The
average classis has 3,343.04 members.
The
median classis is New Brunswick Classis with 2,725 members.
If
you combine the 11 smallest classes, Zeeland classis still has more members.
If
you combine the nine smallest eastern classes, Zeeland classis (10,199) still
has 195 more total members.
If
you combine the eight smallest eastern classes, Illiana-Florida (8,498) still
has 359 more members.
It
takes 29 Zeeland Classis members to equal the weight of 1 Canadian Prairies
Classis member.
Schoharie
Classis members are weighted 12 times more heavily than Illiana Classis
members.
Each
of the Midwestern synods are underrepresented when classis votes are taken.
They
are underrepresented by a total of 23.82%.
Each
of the eastern synods are overrepresented when classis votes are taken.
They
are overrepresented by a total of 15.4%.
Regional
Synod of Mid-America has the same number of classes (4) as Regional Synod of
the Mid-Atlantics.
Regional
Synod of Mid-America has 42% more members than Regional Synod of the
Mid-Atlantics.
Regional
Synod of Mid-Atlantics is the most proportionally represented synod when
classis votes are taken.
Of
the smallest ten classes six are in the east, eight of fifteen, and twelve of
twenty.
It
is possible for classes representing 62.22% of the RCA’s membership to attain
only 1/3 of the classis votes, thus failing to stop a constitutional change.
Conversely
it is possible for classes representing 38.78% of the RCA’s total membership to
attain the necessary 2/3 of the classis votes required to make a constitutional
change.
If
the three regional synods east of the Appalachian Mountains vote as a bloc they
have 37.7% of the classis votes and 22.37% of the total membership.
Attaining
37.7% of classis votes is sufficient to stop any proposed constitutional
change.
Changing
this process requires the approval of 30 of the RCA’s 45 classes.
28
classes are currently over represented when classis votes are taken.
Interpreting these Facts:
Making
a list of interesting tidbits is one thing, but interpreting them and applying
them are something quite different. What does this information mean for
the RCA’s future?
I
am sure the information could be used to reach a multitude of conclusions, I
want to highlight three:
The RCA’s current system encourages
inefficiency in ministry.
Each
classis necessarily performs certain functions, many of which are rather time
consuming. Each classis is tasked with vetting and preparing candidates
for ministry, overseeing churches and consistories within its bounds, and a
plethora of other day to day, week to week, and annual responsibilities that
often take up far more time than you would expect. Each classis has a
clerk, a president, and most often a number of other officers with various
responsibilities.
Because
of this it would be more efficient if smaller classes (say classes with
memberships around or below 1000 members) which were in close geographic
proximity merged and shared their burdens. But, since each classis gets a
vote of its own when constitutional changes are proposed it would be to the
classes disadvantage, politically, to merge. Thus the RCA’s current
system—and current politically charged environment--encourages inefficiency.
The RCA’s current system grossly
misrepresents the mind of the church.
The intention behind the required
approval of 2/3 of the classes to effect any constitutional change is to ensure
that such change would be approved of by a significant majority of the church
at-large. But, as you can see from the
figures above, that is simply not the case in the RCA any longer. When one geographic region is
underrepresented by 23.82% while another is overrepresented by 15.4% it is
difficult to say with sincerity that the mind of the denomination can be
accurately discerned through the classis vote mechanism. It is now possible that a change could be
passed against the wishes of over 62% of the denomination’s membership. It is also possible that a change which is
widely favored could be rejected by classes representing 12.02% of the members
of the Reformed Church in America.
There is no obvious remedy to this scenario since reforming
this process also requires approval of 2/3 of the classes. This is leads to point three which is…
The RCA’s current system eliminates any
hope of positive constitutional reform.
It
takes 16 classis votes to vote down a constitutional change. There are 17
classes among the three eastern regional synods. These 17 classes have voted as
a bloc for some time, most recently on the removal of the conscience clauses,
and before that on the acceptance of the Belhar Confession. If that practice continues it will be
constitutionally impossible to effect conservative reform of a lasting
manner.
This
is important for a couple of reasons:
The
only truly effective means of reform in the RCA would be to change the
constitution of the denomination. If we are going to have enforceable
positions and common standards they will need to be enshrined within the RCA’s
constitution (BCO, Confessions, and Liturgy). Although the eastern synods
make up just over 22% of the RCA’s membership they receive nearly 38% of the
classis votes. It requires only 34% of the classis votes to deny a
constitutional change. Thus even if there was unanimous approval of a
change among the other 28 classes (and there wouldn’t be) even moderately
positive changes could be, and would be, defeated in a vote of the classes.
The
RCA is in desperate need of biblical accountability in the form of church
discipline. This discipline will remain an impossibility so long as there
is no mechanism for cross-classis accountability. To create such a
mechanism would require the approval of two general synods (a tall order since
representation is not proportional there either) and 2/3 of the classes.
This will certainly not happen in the current system.
Why am I bringing attention to this
information? The reason is quite simple:
many people within the Reformed Church in America ask those of us petitioning
to withdraw this question, “But, isn’t there still hope? We can bring some reform, right?” Unfortunately, I think the answer to that
question in human terms is “no”. We
serve a God who can do the impossible—and I would love nothing more than to see
him work powerfully in the Reformed Church in America to bring about
revival. However, I believe the task to
be equally impossible with or without myself, First Church, or the other ministers
and churches seeking to withdraw from the RCA.
If renewal comes it will not be due to our efforts because our efforts
are easily thwarted with our current polity.
In this way we leave with clean consciences feeling as though we have
fulfilled our pledges to be loyal to the witness and work of the Reformed
Church in America. We no longer feel we
can minister effectively and in good conscience within the bounds of the
Reformed Church in America, but each of us will continue to pray that the Lord
revives many hearts within the RCA and leads her forward in renewed
faithfulness and fruitfulness. May it
be.
[1] Wes Granberg-Michaelson, “What Might the Confession of Belhar Unify?”
http://images.rca.org/docs/aboutus/WhatMightBelharUnify.pdf
[2] Carl Trueman, “Why Christians Need Confessions”
http://www.opc.org/nh.html?article_id=771
[3] http://www.thebanner.org/departments/2011/05/why-the-Belhar-should-not-be-a-confession
[4] http://www.theird.org/page.aspx?pid=1844
[5] Thabiti Anyabwile,
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/thabitianyabwile/2010/07/27/bringing-up-Belhar-again/
[6] DeYoung,
http://thegospelcoalition.org/blogs/kevindeyoung/2009/05/11/Belhar-confession-yea-or-nay/
[7]
Wes
Granberg-Michaelson, “What Might the Confession of Belhar Unify?” http://images.rca.org/docs/aboutus/WhatMightBelharUnify.pdf
[9]
http://www.roomforall.com/welcoming-and-affirming-congregations/roster-of-affirming-congregations-in-the-rca/
[10] http://www.hollandsentinel.com/x2139023662/Church-briefs
[11]
http://www.roomforall.com/news/registration-is-open-for-bic-in-ada-mi/
[12] Trygve Johnson, “Turning the Page: An Interview with Wesley
Granberg-Michaelson” Perspectives.
Source: http://www.rca.org/Page.aspx?pid=7384
[13] http://standardbearer.rfpa.org/articles/all-around-us-503
[14] For a definition of the complementarian perspective, see
http://www.churchcouncil.org/iccp_org/Documents_ICCP/English/17_Male_Female_Distinctives_A&D.pdf
[15] Source: https://www.rca.org/sslpage.aspx?pid=8442
[16] http://michiganradio.org/post/reformed-church-america-strikes-policy-allowing-conscience-objection-female-ministers
[17] For a full look at the Chicago Statement on
Biblical Inerrancy go to: http://www.alliancenet.org/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID307086_CHID750054_CIID2094584,00.html
[18] The RCA’s official position as contained in the
liturgy is that the books of the Old and New Testaments are to be received as
the Word of God and containing the perfect doctrine of salvation. This is, of course, not nearly the same thing
as believing it to be true in all its parts and propositions.
[19] For more information see:
“Constitutional Reform in the RCA--The Facts” and “Interpreting the Facts” by
Rev. Kappers
[20] The PCA’s Book of
Church Order requires ministers to subcribe to the confessions by affirming
positively this question, “Do you sincerely receive and adopt the Confession of
Faith and the Catechisms of this Church, as containing the system of doctrine
taught in the Holy Scriptures; and do you further promise that if at any time
you find yourself out of accord with any of the fundamentals of this system of
doctrine, you will on your own initiative, make known to your Presbytery the
change which has taken place in your views since the assumption of this
ordination vow?”
[21]
http://www.pcacep.org/wic-101/
[22] Regarding the office
of elder, “The office is one of dignity and usefulness. The man who fills it has in Scripture
different titles expressive of his various duties.” PCA BCO Chapter 8-1
[23]http://www.starwire.com/partner/Article_Display_Page/0,,PTID23682_CHID125044_CIID1620134,00.html
[24] PCA BCO 21-5 and 24-6
[25]
http://www.pcanet.org/history/
[26]
http://images.rca.org/docs/synod/Synod2013-President.pdf
