I wrote this one for CRC-Voices as well but thought that others might benefit from it as well.
Viewpoints or Voices:
1. John is a friend, brother, former CRC leader, part of a generational cohort. The book enables us to hear his voice, understand his thoughts. He is helping us know him, know part of ourselves, know our culture by sharing his musings.
2. John as pastor/leader/author has strayed from the confessional CRC positions and betrayed the cause. When we line up John’s statements with our settled positions we find him heterodox. Writing this may lead others to follow in his wake.
It seems pretty clear that 1 and 2 aren’t mutually exclusive.
A few asked “why did he write the book”. We might also turn the question around on ourselves and ask “why are we writing our posts”. Remember, our responses are our own, always. They often say more about us than what we’re responding to.
Options for responding:
1. I want to highlight where John has violated settled CRC doctrinal positions so that my public record can be clear on where I stand, and others reading all of this will be able to delineate clearly how to distinguish John’s thought from CRC teaching.
2. I love John, and I feel what he does so please be gentle and if at all possible try to understand him. John is not alone (part of the definition of leadership) and so others are struggling with what he is. Don’t shoot at him or others like him. If you can’t agree, then just try to be gentle or understanding.
3. This is an interesting case in CRC culture and history. It’s worth exploring.
4. I feel strongly about __________________ and because of that when I read this book I see how this intersection with my feelings about _____________ in this way…
5. I don’t like conflict and I’d really like the CRC to be a community with some harmony and agreement. I use communication not only to figure out the truth of what we’re talking about, but also to experience community.
6. I like debate and I’d love a no holds barred working through these issues to weigh them, find out what is true, what is wanting, and let’s work together to state them clearly.
and it can continue. I’m sure others would have a couple to offer. And again, these aren’t mutually exclusive either.
We get a bit worked up when we get the purposes and lines crossed though. It might be helpful to remember what our governing viewpoint is and why we are responding. All of that is self-work. 🙂 pvk
Leadingchurch.com 
I think we respond for the same reasons you write on a blog and elsewhere about John Suk. The story of a book of this type from a CRC leader hits us smack in the face with the same question. Am I sure of my faith and more importantly, am I at rest in trusting that God’s Word is truth? As office bearers, we sign the “form of subscription” which reads in part: “We promise further that if in the future we come to have any difficulty with these doctrines or reach views differing from them, we will not propose, defend, preach, or teach such views, either publicly or privately, until we have first disclosed them to the consistory, classis, or synod for examination.”
If John had followed this procedure he would have had the benefit of peer counseling and possibly a change in his thought process. It is painful to see John going in his present direction without following the process in place for dealing with such disagreements. Signing the FOS is like a contract that we agree to. My fear is that others will now violate the FOS without dealing fairly with others over their disagreements. Having read his book (Not Sure), I hold no animosity toward John, but I am concerned about the way he left and how it affects the rest of the family. For others who may be “Not Sure” of their faith, please, take the time to share your fears and concerns with others before leaving another empty seat in the family.