Great post, Ben. I appreciate the link, though I do want to note that the concept of the CRC circulatory system started (I think) with Paul VanderKlay. I don't know that he agrees with everything I've written about it, but just want to make sure credit for this concept goes where it's due.
I'm pretty sure the circulation theory of the CRC did start with me. Just a simple analogy. Culture eats confessions for breakfast because how you hold and enforce confessions comes with the culture.
While I'm certainly on "team confessions/team doctrine," I can fully agree and relate to the idea that a denomination's culture is important, and consists of far more than just what we officially teach together. However, I think churches and denominations can go way off track by relying on culture and ignoring doctrine (not what I hear you arguing for, but what I think there are many examples of currently, both within and outside of the CRC).
Personally, I'm blessed to be a pastor in Classis Zeeland, which I believe has is a rather unique position. Not only do we have a lot of doctrinal agreement, but our pastors and even churches are blessed to have many opportunities to interact/work with one another, all adding to a great culture we share (in my opinion). I can see how, in many of our far more geographically scattered congregations, it would be a great challenge to maintain the kind of cultural relations that we enjoy here.
As I write a little bit more, I think it will become clear that I'm not advocating for a purely cultural view of denominations. I agree that you can go way off track by not having some kind of doctrine as part of your life together (examples abound from all corners of the church). When we think of a denomination only as a "way of life" without any written doctrine, then doctrine inevitably sneaks into our life together without anyone knowing it. At the same time, when we think of a denomination only as a set of written doctrines, then a "way of life" sneaks into our life together without anyone noticing. It's this second problem that I worry about in our present moment.
I think your Classis, because of its proximity, is a great example of how culture can form pastors and churches. It's probably impossible for you to identify Coopersville CRC as the purest expression of the Christian Reformed Church because you're surrounded and meet regularly with other pastors and see the work of other churches. Churches which are more isolated (either geographically or for other reasons) have less opportunities for this. I think there are ways to share culture across broader sections of the denomination so that these churches don't get isolated, but we have to identify that this is important in order to actually do something about it.
I read Lindbeck back in 2023 at the recommendation of another pastor, so it was a great affirmation to see you write about him. There are a number of large crumbs from your thinking in here, but I also feel like we use him slightly differently.
Great post, Ben. I appreciate the link, though I do want to note that the concept of the CRC circulatory system started (I think) with Paul VanderKlay. I don't know that he agrees with everything I've written about it, but just want to make sure credit for this concept goes where it's due.
Thanks Kent. I've updated the post with a link to Paul's page. I couldn't remember who had started talking about it first.
I'm pretty sure the circulation theory of the CRC did start with me. Just a simple analogy. Culture eats confessions for breakfast because how you hold and enforce confessions comes with the culture.
While I'm certainly on "team confessions/team doctrine," I can fully agree and relate to the idea that a denomination's culture is important, and consists of far more than just what we officially teach together. However, I think churches and denominations can go way off track by relying on culture and ignoring doctrine (not what I hear you arguing for, but what I think there are many examples of currently, both within and outside of the CRC).
Personally, I'm blessed to be a pastor in Classis Zeeland, which I believe has is a rather unique position. Not only do we have a lot of doctrinal agreement, but our pastors and even churches are blessed to have many opportunities to interact/work with one another, all adding to a great culture we share (in my opinion). I can see how, in many of our far more geographically scattered congregations, it would be a great challenge to maintain the kind of cultural relations that we enjoy here.
Lloyd
As I write a little bit more, I think it will become clear that I'm not advocating for a purely cultural view of denominations. I agree that you can go way off track by not having some kind of doctrine as part of your life together (examples abound from all corners of the church). When we think of a denomination only as a "way of life" without any written doctrine, then doctrine inevitably sneaks into our life together without anyone knowing it. At the same time, when we think of a denomination only as a set of written doctrines, then a "way of life" sneaks into our life together without anyone noticing. It's this second problem that I worry about in our present moment.
I think your Classis, because of its proximity, is a great example of how culture can form pastors and churches. It's probably impossible for you to identify Coopersville CRC as the purest expression of the Christian Reformed Church because you're surrounded and meet regularly with other pastors and see the work of other churches. Churches which are more isolated (either geographically or for other reasons) have less opportunities for this. I think there are ways to share culture across broader sections of the denomination so that these churches don't get isolated, but we have to identify that this is important in order to actually do something about it.
Ben, so good. How else can we make you talk about Lindbeck?
I think I know where you got this idea 😇
I read Lindbeck back in 2023 at the recommendation of another pastor, so it was a great affirmation to see you write about him. There are a number of large crumbs from your thinking in here, but I also feel like we use him slightly differently.