Monitoring Doctrinal Orthodoxy
Painting a CRC Future: Part 9
Sociologist Dr. Gary Bouma identified 5 different structural factors that had enabled the Christian Reformed Church denomination to grow their churches and members, while also holding tightly to their distinct theological convictions — despite existing in a North American context that was increasingly opposed to the CRC’s conservative confessional values.
The 5th and final structoral factor for denomination growth is going to be hard for some in the modern CRC to hear…
Monitoring Doctrinal Orthodoxy.
Again — this isn’t my opinion.
But again, this matches my thoughts exactly.
It should not surprise us that God’s biblical intentions for His church would prove to be most healthy. Certainly, numerical health is no sure sign of spiritual health, but it is no mere coincidence that the denomination allowing this commitment to doctrinal orthodoxy to degrade has corresponded strongly with a decline in both numerical health and spiritual health.
The CRC’s commitment to monitoring doctrinal orthodoxy serves 3 crucial rules in the denominations perseverance.
“First it provides occasions in which serious theological discussion can occur. If the principles of conservative Calvinism are to be seen to be taken seriously, then they must be continually discussed as to substance and interpretation.
Secondly, such discussions provide occasions in which the correct path can be outlined. Erikson (1966) points out that one of the functions of theological deviants is to highlight where normalcy lies. "Heresy trials" serve to point to the boundaries of acceptable behaviour and thought.
Thirdly, this practice maintains theological interest and acumen in the church. The debates between differing viewpoints are followed in the several journals of scholarly opinion related to the CRC.”
“Thus, monitoring theological orthodoxy is not merely a matter of sanctioning deviants but a practice which keeps alive both knowledge and skills required for the perpetuation of the CRC world view and way of life.”
There exists in the CRC a maybe-once-true but now definitely not true belief that the denomination and denominational schools like Calvin U and Calvin Seminary are too head-driven, too intellectual, too focused on doctrine.
If this were accurate in the past, it is definitely not anymore. The theological acumen of pastors, elders, lay members, and denominational staff leaves much to be desired. And fewer still actually hold to our beliefs, even if they know them. Students leave the dual Calvins with much training in empathy and introspection, but weak training in the doctrine and teachings of our Reformed theology.
The lessening of standards in our theological schools, replaced with DEI classes.
The rapid decline of churches still holding evening services.
(And with it the decline of catechetical preaching.)
The decreasing expectation and emphasis of children attending Christian Education.
The pathetic lack of classical and denominational discipline.
These lowered standards leave us with fewer members knowing and holding to Reformed convictions, and this opens the door to the twin errors of generic mainline Christianity on the left and generic evangelicalism on the right.
Neither is CRC. Neither is Reformed.
Nobody wants “heresy trials”.
What we want is a church that teaches what it believes, that believes what it teaches, and that holds itself to the standard of those teachings.
Churches that fail to monitor and maintain their distintives will find themselves with nothing to offer anyone.
And the Christian Reformed Church has a LOT to offer!