Making a Dirty Splash in a Little Puddle: An Attempt to Amend BC 14 (4)

Apologia for this series (1)

In case readers are wondering why I’m so energetic—some might say: worked up—about this matter, here is part of the explanation.

In terms of the overture to revise BC 14, the persons whom it publicly identifies and criticizes do not hold or teach the views ascribed to them, nor have they been successfully charged with holding such views. Their reputations are being thereby injured.

But equally serious is the “church side” of this matter. An overture to an ecclesiastical assembly has been adopted and disseminated to every CanRC consistory as part of an ecclesiastical process—which very process is now continuing to injure those reputations.

Put simply: I care about those individuals and their reputations, and I also care about a just and righteous practice of church polity. I believe it would be morally righteous if Br. A. and Br. J. did not have to be left twisting in the CanRC wind while people follow an “ecclesiastical process” en route to the next meeting of RSE. Therefore, I am willing to spend some hard-earned capital (units of goodwill and favor) by speaking to these matters.

Incidentally, discerning readers will have noticed that I’ve not engaged the substance of the proposed revision of BC 14 with respect to theistic evolution or possible pre-Adamite ancestors of the first humans. Therefore, it would be both unfair and illogical to conclude from this silence that I am a theistic evolutionist or advocate possible pre-Adamite ancestors. I am not, and I do not. Nor am I trying to create room among Reformed and Presbyterian brothers and sisters for tolerating such views.

Apologia (2)

I want to broaden my defense for writing about this matter, and move beyond the CanRC for a moment.

I will be frank with you. I fear that among our smaller conservative Reformed and Presbyterian church fellowships, we are witnessing far too much “rough housing.” I assume you know the term, “rough housing”? When my brothers and I used to wrestle and grapple and tumble around with each other, things would move from playfulness to teasing to downright aggression. My parents would then have to step in and call a halt to such “rough housing.” I must tell you that my wife, whose family never, ever knew of such behavior, has never really learned, after joining our family, to appreciate this form of fraternalizing. To her, after all these years (44 years yesterday!), it still looks mean.

In the church, “rough housing” occurs among brothers (and sisters?) who know each other well, know each other’s “buttons” and weak spots, and can “take each other down” with arguments and debates. Some even enjoy it. But for outsiders looking in, this kind of church life looks awfully mean and mean-spirited.

Nowadays, I’m watching good Reformed ministers getting pushed around, sometimes shown the door, by elders who practice “rough housing.” I’m seeing Reformed ministers thrusting their personality and their opinions on mild-mannered elders and on their tranquil flock, turning molehills into mountains, battering them with personal convictions that grow into full-blown crusades.

I confess that I am as skilled at this as anyone.

But my plea to all of us, including myself, is: For the sake of our witness to a watching world, we need to stop this.

I confess that I am still learning this life-lesson: When my devotion to what is true and right leaves bloody corpses lying on the path, something is very disordered about my devotion.

The Ninth Commandment (continued)

In that spirit and with that caution, let’s resume the discussion.

We observe that accusations against Br. A. and Br. J. were given pride of place among the grounds adduced in support of the overture to revise BC 14.

The first, and by far the longest, of ten grounds reads:

“1. Theistic evolution is being publically [sic] taught or promoted by some members within the Canadian Reformed Churches.”

Then follows three pages of citations, references, and claims relating to Br. A. and Br. J., all of which are thought to prove the assertion being made in Ground 1.

Before going any further, let’s remind ourselves of the scope and extent of the Ninth Commandment. Lord’s Day 43, Q&A 112, teaches:

What is required in the ninth commandment?

I must not give false testimony against anyone, twist no one’s words, not gossip or slander, not condemn or join in condemning anyone rashly and unheard. Rather, I must avoid all lying and deceit as the devil’s own works, under penalty of God’s heavy wrath. In court and everywhere else, I must love the truth, speak and confess it honestly, and do what I can to defend and promote my neighbour’s honour and reputation (CanRC version).

Everything that follows here about Br. A., you can verify online.

The recent meeting of COW occurred on 11 March 2015. More than ten days earlier, by 28 February 2015, every PCRC council member learned the following facts.

The overture states: “Theistic evolution is being publically [sic] taught or promoted by some members within the Canadian Reformed Churches. We will supply two separate examples of individuals doing so,” including Br. A.

In his 28 February communication, Br. A. declared that he is in fact not a “theistic evolutionist,” and that this is a matter of public record.

The overture refers to Br. A.’s essay, “Religion and the Science Classroom,” which is Chapter 5 of Matthew Etherington, Foundations of Education: A Christian Vision (Wipf & Stock, 2014; pp. 68ff.). The overture declares that Br. A. “accepts evolution as the explanation for most of what happened and how it happened.”

In fact, nothing of the sort is stated in that essay.

The overture states that Br. A. “is currently the president of the Canadian Scientific and Christian Affiliation, an organization which promotes theistic evolution.”

Br. A. replied that CSCA does not in fact promote theistic evolution. To his knowledge, the CSCA does not even have a position statement on evolution. But the ASA, which (as noted in the overture) co­-publishes the journal Perspectives on Science and Christian Faith (PSCF) with CSCA, does have such a statement, which expresses a broad range of views within the ASA.

*  *  *

Br. A. was informed that the PCRC council has placed his letter on their meeting agenda for 29 March 2015.

*  *  *

I humbly submit to you that according to any fair reading of Heidelberg Catechism, Lord’s Day 43, Q&A 112, and given the prior, timely, and direct responses of Br. A., there is valid reason to believe that the Ninth Commandment has been violated when this overture was brought to and adopted by COW.

I also humbly submit to you that something needs to be done—and can be done—to repair this damage resulting from this violation. We will be returning to that in a later post.

To be continued.