Strike Off Those Fetters, Dash Off Those Letters

Sharing Options
Show Outline with Links

Forgot to Turn on Comments for this One

But I have now remedied that. Let the healing begin.

That Old Bisexual Problem

“And don’t give me any nonsense about relationships having to be limited to two. Being bi necessitates either alternating serial relationships, or a standing relationship that involves three at a minimum. This is not a complicated math problem. If you want to work it out, I’ll wait.” I won’t get into the polyamory issue, but being bisexual no more necessitates having two partners than being heterosexual or homosexual does. If you asked any bisexual person, they would tell you that. I have the pleasure of knowing several lovely bisexual people in committed monogamous relationships. It’s really disingenuous of you to suggest otherwise.

Christine

Christine, not disingenuous at all. I was talking about sexual expression. In order for bisexuality to be expressed sexually, or maritally, there has to be a minimum of three people involved. Of course a bisexual can be in a monogamous relationship—but only by denying, suppressing, or foregoing one aspect of his or her sexuality. If bisexuality as such is to be expressed, the options are what I have outlined. If it is hate to not allow a particular sexuality to be expressed maritally, then three is the minimum.


The CREC Statement

When are we going to see this explicit a condemnation of sexual predation on wives and children within the CREC?

David

David, when a massive segment of the church starts applauding such sexual predation against women and children, you can count on us. We will condemn it soundly. But nobody is doing that. The reason our armies are stationed where they are, and are fighting where they are, is because that is where the invaders are.


Thankful for this statement. However, permitting individual leaders to speak on behalf of the presbytery or denomination is too open to abuse. When the moderator of synod signs statements on global warming or immigration, their perspective goes not match mine, but there is next to no recourse.

John

John, when a presiding minister speaks on behalf of the presbytery or Council, he must include that action in his next report to his governing body. If they approve it, it remains an official statement. If they do not, it is overturned.


If the image of God is sexually binary, how are unmarried people in God’s image? Barth’s answer, cited by Wesley Hill at First Things is that we are all, each one, including single people like Jesus, male and female—that is, “male in relationship with female,” or vice versa. What do you think of that solution? Why do we need the idea of a sexually binary image in order to criticize that surgery? Aren’t creation structures enough?

John

John, I don’t think the overwhelming norm is set aside by the exceptions. Christ is the Word, and we reflect that when we speak. But those who are dumb and cannot speak are not excluded from the image–they belong to a race of speakers.


Comments on the Cavalcade

Your identification of the “+” as the catch-all at the end of the cultural pantheon of L, G, B, T, and Q reminds me of the Athenian altar “to the unknown god” in Acts chapter 17. Would you venture a guess at what the Apostle Paul’s sermon points would be to those who worship at the altar of “+” if he were present today? I have been reading G. K. Chesterton’s Everlasting Man and I have been thinking of the way he described paganism as: “. . . an attempt to reach the divine reality through the imagination alone; in its own field of reason does not restrain it at all” (Chap 5: Man and Mythologies) Would it be correct to see the sexual sins and confusion of our day both as purposeful blindness and rejection of God in a Romans 1 fashion, while simultaneously being a desperate grasp for some “divine reality” or transcendent meaning/purpose that the real Trinity actually offers through faith in Christ? Not so that confusion and sexual sin can be affirmed as good, but so we can preach towards the deep human desires that have their satisfaction in Christ only. Perhaps it is a stretch but I covet your though.

CG

Yes. All idolatry is an attempt to squeeze out of a finite thing what only the infinite can provide.


I am in rural SC and my husband’s co-worker (a real redneck by anyone’s standards) was complaining to him at the end of last semester about a first grade boy at his son’s school wearing lipstick to school . . . So I don’t know if even the red states are safe anymore. The public schools are mostly run by women who are not only more likely to be deceived but also more afraid resist their leftist overlords.

Amanda

Well, in the blue states, it would be blue lipstick.


I have to think there are frustrated, orthodox, right-minded thinking members of PCA congregations that simply do not know what do right now; bolt? Stay? Fight? So far the PCA hasn’t said squat (to my knowledge) about Revoice. How would you counsel the angry masses in PCA churches?

Todd

Todd, I would encourage them to petition their sessions to instruct their delegates to file a complaint or charges at presbytery.


Amen

Dave

Dave, thanks.


My morning reading Revoice rebuttal: Psalm 66:18—“If I had cherished iniquity in my heart, the Lord would not have listened.”

Christian

Christian, thanks and amen.


Weights and Measures

Re: “What Regulation Does” Are you saying that all regulation of business inherently corrupts government by making inappropriate connections between business and government? Or are you saying that in our current government system calling for such regulation will result in crony capitalism? Is this a universal principle or a particular case? If the government’s purpose extends to certain moral concerns, as Romans tells us and WCF affirms, then I don’t see how regulation is inherently corrupting, especially when it comes to preventing businesses from being unjust to their customers, whether through dangerously lax cleanliness standards, false advertising, or the like. Now, I’m not advocating for all the government regulation we see today, but surely there is room for some government regulation of business?

Carson

Carson, it all boils down to what you mean by regulation. I believe the government should set the standards—what constitutes a Troy ounce, what is meant by a liquid gallon, what counts as decent hygiene. But this means the government should define, not regulate beforehand. If someone sold someone else a pound of beef that was actually not a pound of beef, they could bring an action.


Little Video Thingies on Facebook

I love the parenting “moment” with Mrs. Wilson!! It is a great length—so shareable—good conversation starters. More of these please!!

Kat

Kat, more on the way.


Everybody’s a Critic

I don’t see any birch in that stand of poplar . . .

Desmond

Desmond, I was a philosophy major. Leave me alone.


A Practical Dilemma

I’m seeking your thoughts on something not directly referred to in any of your recent articles. As a brother in Christ who enjoys your writing ministry from afar off, help me understand how it can be permissible (a conscience issue because the Bible does not say, “thou shalt not . . .”), for a Christian parent to attend, as a silent participant, their child’s wedding related to a so called “gay marriage?” A fellow Christian in my life was faced with this unfortunate scenario. I attempted to discourage him from attending. His response to me was, “who do you think you are!” I was very disheartened by this response. It almost became a source of stumbling because I had looked up to him. How could a Christian parent attend this? Do they clap when the two kiss? Do they hug them and shake their hands to congratulate them on their new and evil union? How is doing so not a grave sin? Others have challenged my dogmatism related to this by asking, “what other weddings would you discourage Christian parents from attending?” I certainly recognize that the precedent related to the compromise of (unbiblical divorce and remarriage) certain types of marriages upstream has resulted in the further compromise of evil marriage concepts downstream. Shouldn’t conservative Christians agree not to attend such a proceeding (doctrine of demons ceremony may be a better title?) as a silent participant? The reasoning offered is usually along the following lines, “I want to maintain the relationship” or “I see it as an evangelistic opportunity.” Doesn’t even Russell Moore discourage Christians from attending, as a silent participant, a wedding related to a so-called “gay marriage?” If you know of any Christian who intends on attending one of these so as to severely and vocally denounce the proceedings, please let me know, as I could use some fresh inspiration right about now. On a side note, please keep up your writing ministry. You greatly encourage me. There are very few people that can make me laugh, but you have accomplished that feat. God Bless.

Doug

Doug, a wedding is a celebration, and if the celebration is over the violation of God’s law, then Christians should not be there—whether the disobedience is heterosexual or homosexual. Russell Moore once made a statement that Christians shouldn’t attend the wedding, but could attend the reception, which completely misses the point. We cannot be celebrating when God is denouncing.


The PCA Really Needs to Do Something

Your “On the PCA Getting French-Kissed by the World” piece was a fine and appropriately probing essay, as usual. Another question that ought to be asked of the T-supporters among the brotherhood is “Can a person with two X chromosomes, who identifies as male, get behind a pulpit?” If the Church has begun to distinguish between sex and gender (which by my reckoning, is a prereq for this sort of thing), do the complementarian roles apply to the sex or the gender? Of course, I am concerned that the answer to such a question will be neither at the rate we are going now. Anyway, thank you for your faithful service to the Body.

Matt

Matt, what seems like a reductio argument now will be an actual argument in five years.


There are answers that leave one’s feet on a firm foundation and one’s mouth closed and heart at rest in the truth . . . even if that truth is hard. Then there are “answers” that leave one endlessly adrift, words multiplying, and heart completely restless. Only more questions (like the kind you’ve raised here) will come.

Different Matt

Matt, yes. As Van Til put it (I think it was Van Til), this is integration downward into the void.


The Supremes

Regarding Kavanaugh, in the words of Elizabeth Bennett, I’ve heard such conflicting accounts as to puzzle me exceedingly. He was Ann Coulter’s pick, AFA opposes him, he wasn’t in Mark Levin’s top 3, Hannity & Gingrich give him a big thumbs up, Michael Farris seems neutral (https://www.facebook.com/michael.farris.374/posts/1711074392323579).

Ginny

Ginny, he wasn’t my top pick, but I still have good hope.


And Now, From the Left Field Bleachers . . .

Curious your take. I’m firmly in the life begins at conception camp and believe that abortion is the destruction of a human being. But is an early-term abortion (or early miscarriage) the death of an eternal soul? My tendency is to say yes, that when a child is aborted, a human life with an eternal soul is being killed. However, what about the case of identical twins, where one life becomes two lives? Did one soul become two souls at that point? Or does God assign an eternal soul to a person at some point post-conception? Forgive the poor wording of the query. Trust in God and keep your powder dry.

Roger

Roger, not surprisingly, this has been debated at an earlier stage of church history, and there are two basic positions. The creationists argue that God creates a brand new human soul at conception, which means, in your scenario, He would have to do it again when the one child became identical twins and separated. The other position was held by the traducionists, who held that we inherit our souls from our parents the same way we inherit our bodies—some from mom and some from dad. This would mean that when the identical twins form, the same thing is happening with them as happened with all of us, only they are identical in soul as well as in body. The Lutherans tended to traducionism while the Reformed tended toward creationism. And although I am Reformed, on this one, I lean traducian.


Abortion and Vaccines

As someone who has always been cautious about vaccinating my children I had heard references to vaccines being derived from aborted babies but only recently looked into it. It’s worse than that, I’m afraid—how can you continue to advocate for anything other than Christians abstaining from vaccines? See the link here.

Amanda

Amanda, I looked into this issue a few years ago, and I am almost sure I wrote about it. But I can’t find it with the usual search terms, and will have to crowd source the search. Does anybody remember me writing about this?


Questions About Reading

Below are a few questions from us laypeople who don’t have the time to read Church Dogmatics or the Institutes twice a year while maintaining a healthy time of prayer and meditation upon God’s Word. 1. As a student of philosophy (for the lack of a better phrase), how do you see that education forming the way you read and understand other thinkers? Where do you locate the benefits of that sort of education, and how can I best glean the writings of arcane or seemingly distant thinkers with which I should be reckoning? I’m a student of Philosophy and Economics at UT Knoxville, so this is a sort of niche personal question. You wouldn’t believe the sorts of dancing professors do to dodge questions nowadays. 2. How do you go about reading several books at the same time, with limited time, and maintaining adequate time in each while keeping the contents of the arguments straight? Or, do you? 3. How do you go about reading the current influential bits of liberal theology, modern theology, analytic theology, and all the other fields that are having a decently wide influence in the admittedly modern theological landscape? Do you reject the study of non-Reformation theology entirely, or do you spend a lot of time reading the thoughts of modern writers (both evangelical and not)? I’ve seen through a recent study of John Stott’s life and ministry that dialogue with other aspects of the faith holds vast benefits and needed challenges. In Christ,

Andrew

Andrew, I would too believe the kind of dancing they are doing. I do read multiple books at a time, but usually limit myself to a few pages at a go. I plod, I chip away, and I mark things as I go. And I do not limit myself to Reformed writers, and have learned a great deal as a result.


And Calvinism Last, As Usual

One commenter wrote: “And beside all that, the particular atonement is unnecessary for Calvinism’s other four points. People can still be totally depraved or persevere in salvation, for example, even if Jesus did indeed die for all mankind.” But—people cannot be totally depraved (really, REALLY TOTALLY – as in “I love my sin and would never love anything else,” dead-like Depraved) without limited atonement, because to overcome what we mean by totally depraved requires an act of God to reveal Christ, create a new love, a new creation, change the heart of stone into a heart of flesh, which change evidences itself in a decision, love for God and deeds of faith. The only other options are universalism (God reveals Christ to everyone & saves us all), or no one gets in. There are no descriptive statements in Scripture stating that we have ability to believe, but a number that say we have no ability (example: apart from me you can do no-thing . . . universal negative) Grace,

Craig

Craig, preach it.

Subscribe
Notify of
guest
33 Comments
Oldest
Newest
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
kyriosity
kyriosity
4 years ago

I have a vague feeling that the vaccine thoughts were in a comment, not in a post, and thus may have fallen prey to some site overhaul along the way.

Nathan
Nathan
4 years ago
Reply to  kyriosity

My vague feeling is that Pastor Wilson casually mentioned it in passing, making a point about something else around the time of the David Daleiden videos, and that he did not write an extensive essay on the subject. My vague feeling regarding the vaccines is that they are permissible, but that such further “harvesting” of embryonic tissues should not be done, and that is should not have been done in the first place and was sinful at the time. Further, my understanding is that the babies weren’t conceived in order to “harvest” their tissue to make vaccines, but that they… Read more »

Amanda Wells
Amanda Wells
4 years ago
Reply to  Nathan

Nathan, if you read the entire article I linked to, you’ll see that victims of abortion continue to be listed as ingredients in most vaccines and that fetal tissue is “essential” to the development of any new vaccines (including your yearly flu shot). Hardly comparable to using the well your enemy dug. And of course no new victims of abortion should be used, but we all know that’s not going to stop just because the Christians say so. This is one of those times where we have to refuse to participate on principle regardless of how little an impact it… Read more »

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Amanda Wells

Amanda, we all must follow our conscience about this, but I have a few concerns about the accuracy of the article to which you linked. I have researched this fairly carefully, and there are some factual errors. The CDC, Michigan Right to Life, and numerous medical websites confirm that there is no fetal tissue used in the production of flu vaccines. (Chicken embryos provide the live cells.) Michigan Right to Life also confirms that every vaccine currently on the market that uses cell lines derived from aborted fetuses is based on the two abortions in the 1960s that produced MRC-5… Read more »

Amanda Wells
Amanda Wells
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

Thank you, Jill, for encouraging me to carefully read the CDC links in the article and go through flu shot ingredient lists instead of just taking the author’s word on it. You are correct – she wrongly included vaccines for influenza in the list of ones that contain cells from aborted babies.

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Amanda Wells

Hi Amanda, it is so hard for those of us who aren’t trained in the sciences to know what to believe, isn’t it. I find myself constantly believing things that turn out not to be true!

Amanda Wells
Amanda Wells
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

Ironically I illustrated my own point about women being more easily deceived (which of course I learned from our host) that I made in my other letter about the first-grade boy in SC. In my own defense, if you go through that CDC list and cross-reference the ones that do contain cells from those original lines to the plethora of shots required by public schools you will see that there is a great degree of overlap. And the way this information isn’t discussed in the wider Christian community tends to make me think that there aren’t that many people actually… Read more »

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Amanda Wells

Amanda, I think that many people have no idea what is in the vaccines their children are given. I try to keep up with medical news, and I did not know about the use of fetal tissue until quite recently. I suspect that part of this is due to how polarized people, especially mothers, have become about the whole issue of vaccination. Too many of us choose our side and then take for granted that information from the opposing side is false. Or, having chosen our side, we simply don’t want to read anything that might change our minds. I… Read more »

OKRickety
OKRickety
4 years ago
Reply to  kyriosity

Regarding vaccination, perhaps this post (And Now a Brief Word on Vaccines), or comments near (Hygiene Lectures from Typhoid Mary – comment 55134) or (Heir of Isildur – comment 104749) are being remembered.

bethyada
bethyada
4 years ago
Reply to  OKRickety

Several comment threads had discussions around this issue.

adad0
adad0
4 years ago
Reply to  OKRickety

Wow Rick! Nice job on the search for an obscure blog comment in an obscure blog! ; – )

Hope things are good on your end. They are ok on mine. (no pun intended.)

OKRickety
OKRickety
4 years ago

I see you also corrected “martially” to “maritally” (which this commenting “system” autocorrects to “martially”). For some perverse reason (likely related to my experience in my one-time marriage), I find references to martial in the context of a marriage discussion to be amusing.

Matt
Matt
4 years ago

Bisexuality is when a person’s attractions are not defined by gender. It doesn’t imply that a person always likes exactly one male and one female at all times, such that “expressing” bisexuality requires a relationship with at least two other people. For comparison, someone who is attracted to both Whites and Asians doesn’t need to simultaneously marry someone of both races or else lose out on something integral to their identity. Conservatives would argue that “male and female” are qualitatively different from each other in a way that “white and asian” aren’t, but this is not what liberals believe, and… Read more »

john k
john k
4 years ago
Reply to  Matt

You haven’t challenged the point. The current renewed sexual revolution insists that proscribed sexual desires must be allowed open expression–the fact that some people can stick to limits must not be used to limit anybody. Bisexual people (or pansexuals, on your definition) must be allowed to decide to put all their desires into practice.

JP Stewart
JP Stewart
4 years ago
Reply to  john k

“The current renewed sexual revolution insists that proscribed sexual desires must be allowed open expression”

Well, some desires must be allowed openly. If it’s a heterosexual desire that rubs the #metoo movement the wrong way, you might get arrested. And the Revoice crowd isn’t offering “treasures in New Jerusalem” conferences for bestiality, incest, pedophilia, etc…at least not yet. We’re letting our culture set the standards and limits.

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  JP Stewart

JP, I have wondered about this. Human nature being what it is, sooner or later a gay person is bound to hit upon another gay person. How will the Revoicers twist themselves into pretzels either of defense or condemnation? I am already prepared for the “well, it’s part of gay culture” defense.

JP Stewart
JP Stewart
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

Jill, hundreds of people are expected to attend Revoice. There’s a good chance some attendees might form friendships that eventually leave the celibate zone–our sin nature being what it is. Those organizing the conference must know this, but apparently think it’s important enough to risk casualties. It’s kind of like Ron/Thabiti’s thinking on the SCOTUS and abortions.

OKRickety
OKRickety
4 years ago
Reply to  Matt

Matt,

The definition of marriage as being two people is absolutely arbitrary….

Why, yes it is. If you wish to believe otherwise, as does some significant portion of society today, then you are not following God’s standard. Thinking about it, I don’t recall the Bible showing God desiring to meet society’s standards, nor God desiring that His followers be accepted by the wider culture. In other words, God’s way, not man’s way, is the right way.

Justin Parris
Justin Parris
4 years ago
Reply to  Matt

“Bisexuality is when a person’s attractions are not defined by gender. ” This is just simply false. It’s a revision of the word to coincide with in vogue gender theory. Bisexuality by its very name defines itself by gender. Bisexuals are people who are attracted to both (2=”bi”) genders. If a bisexual was a person who’s attraction wasn’t defined by gender, they would be interested in androgyny and transsexuals in equal measure. Yet, if we look at bisexual communities on the internet, those interests are nowhere to be found. “Conservatives would argue that “male and female” are qualitatively different from… Read more »

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Justin, I hadn’t realized until I started reading about it that one of the groups most traditionally unfriendly to bisexuality are gay men! I suppose this is analogous to the unfriendliness of traditionally lesbian women (and feminists) to men who transgender. But you are right–every article I read defined bisexuality as attraction to both genders. I also read that young people prefer to call this being fluid or pansexual (which, to me, suggests Roman orgies). I think I’ve said before that it came as a shock to me to learn that many gay men also sometimes feel an attraction to… Read more »

Matt
Matt
4 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Right, bisexuals are attracted to both genders (i.e. everyone). There is nothing in bisexuality that says a person must be romantically involved with both genders at the same time. Therefore the “bisexuality implied plural marriage” argument is false.

I’m not sure what you’re trying to say with the second point. There might be some fringe of the right wing that considers interracial marriage to be insane while shrugging at gay marriage, but the vast majority of the right has no issue with interracial marriage while thinking gay marriage is beyond the pale.

Jane
Jane
4 years ago
Reply to  Matt

With the second point, it’s absurd to say that liberals universally (or overwhelmingly) don’t believe there is a significant qualitative difference between male and female. Most liberals believe that transgenderism is a valid concept, which wouldn’t be possible if there were no significant qualitative difference between male and female. It wouldn’t be possible to have an opposite gender consciousness if there were no such thing as a definable gender consciousness that had at best, limited overlap with the other gender consciousness.

Matt
Matt
4 years ago
Reply to  Jane

Well you can have a major difference without it being a qualitative one. There is a difference in experience of being black or white, but even the right doesn’t typically argue that black people are a different kind of thing than white people, or that marrying a black person is incomparable to marrying a white person. It seems obvious to me that the right believes there is something essential about gender that the left doesn’t recognize, so that e.g. sex change operations don’t actually change your sex.

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Matt

Matt, I think that even people on the left acknowledge that sex change operations don’t change sexual identity at the molecular level. (I am not sure that I would define the difference in how people see this as a question of left or right–I know quite a few libs who are uncomfortable with gender reassignment surgery, and I have encountered fiscal conservatives who don’t care about it.) I think everyone recognizes that some people have a disconnect between their sex and their gender, and that transgender treatment is intended to bring the former into line with the latter insofar as… Read more »

Jane
Jane
4 years ago
Reply to  Matt

I realize a difference *can be* significant without being qualitative, but I think it’s a huge stretch to argue that so-called transgender people and the supporters of that concept don’t view the difference as qualitative. How could you possibly argue that your body is at war with your essential nature in such a way that your life is unbearable unless you take radical actions to align the two, if the difference were merely one of degree? A smaller degree of something doesn’t war with a larger one, or vice versa.

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  Jane

Jane, you are right. A sense of being trapped in the wrong body is only explicable when there is an absolute (even irrationally absolute) belief about what it means to be male or female. An anorexic adheres to a definition of thinness that is not amenable to reason. Her thinking is delusional, but there can be no doubt about the importance she attaches to her definition. I think we sometimes miss the mark when we see transgenderism as an issue only of sexuality rather than also as an extreme form of body dysmorphia. One thing that puzzles me is that… Read more »

OKRickety
OKRickety
4 years ago
Reply to  Justin Parris

Why is bisexuality being specifically considered? If there are 63 (more or less) genders, then shouldn’t bisexuality be included in pansexuality? Wouldn’t it be discriminatory to limit people’s sexual attraction to just two of these genders?

It becomes quite a mess when a can of worms is considered acceptable.

Jill Smith
Jill Smith
4 years ago
Reply to  OKRickety

You’re right, OKR, although my mind is boggling a little bit trying to envision more than maybe 6 kinds of gender identities (girly-girl, normal girl, tomboy, not-very-manly man, normal man, and John Wayne–have I missed any?) This can only end with everyone throwing up their hands and saying that people should not be restrained in the expression of whatever sexual impulses they happen to feel, as long as they have wiling adult partners.

Kong
Kong
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

As a bisexual person let me straiten this out. Pansexual means you could be possibly attracted to any human regardless of gender. This includes trans and both men and women. Bisexual means simply that you are attracted to men and women. Most pan people however just say that they are bi because it is simpler, more common, and almost the same thing. This is the case for me, Im pan but I only ever say I’m bi for simplicity. Also I don’t think there are any kids pretending to be bi in order to be trendy. I’m 19 right now… Read more »

Kong
Kong
4 years ago
Reply to  Jill Smith

Also btw, the native Americans had six genders which is kind of interesting. And it’s easier to imagine six genders when you don’t tie it to modern sex and gender and the traits associated with them, you have to be much more creative. It’s hard to think outside of something as basic to our scociety as gender however.
Here is one link talking about it:
https://newsmaven.io/indiancountrytoday/archive/two-spirits-one-heart-five-genders-9UH_xnbfVEWQHWkjNn0rQQ/
Here is a less interesting but much easier to read explanation. Anyway, I find it interesting.
https://medium.com/lgbtq-american-history-for-the-people/native-americans-views-on-gender-vs-those-of-the-united-states-today-d080dc31258c

john k
john k
4 years ago

Statements by presiding ministers are reviewed at the next council, but they don’t require a three-fourths vote, and so don’t have even the authority of a memorial. Elders and people can differ with them then?

Also, council meets every three years, so it could be a while for a statement to be reviewed. Yet statements are said to be the position of the denomination during this whole process?

kyriosity
kyriosity
4 years ago
Reply to  john k

John — You might find more details in the CREC governing documents, which are here: https://crechurches.org/documents/governance/CREC_Governance_Comprehensive_2017R.pdf.

john k
john k
4 years ago
Reply to  kyriosity

Thanks for the link. I already checked it out. I just think a precedent is set by acceptable pronouncements now for questionable and debatable ones later. Is it the Church’s job to tell me what to think on every social and governmental issue? Maybe so.
https://www.pcusa.org/news/2018/6/16/stated-clerk-issues-statement-separated-immigrant-/
I admit that beyond executives, councils and church committees also issue generalized and one-sided statements.