Of special significance for the subsequent development of Europe is the work done during the latter part of the fourth century by Christian theologians in discussion with the science of their day. Christopher Kaiser, in his book Creation and the History of Science, has shown how the Cappadocian theologians developed four fundamental principles that were to shape the development of science through the centuries and up to the present day. The important point to note here is that these principles were formulated on the basis of belief in the divine revelation given in Scripture and supremely in the work of Christ. In brief, these principles were as follows:
1. Because the cosmos is the creation of a rational God who has also made us in his image, it follows that the cosmos is in principle comprehensible by the human mind. It is a coherent cosmos, not a chaos of random events. Therefore, (in contrast to important strands in Indian thought) there are no ultimate self-contradictions. It is not to be understood in terms of a yin-yang duality as in Far Eastern thought. It has an ultimate coherence, a coherence of which the central secret is made known in the Incarnation.
2. Because the cosmos is a creation by God as a free act of his will and not an emanation of God (as in some elements in Indian thought), the cosmos has a relative autonomy. Not everything that happens is the direct will of God. It follows, then, that the way to knowledge of the cosmos is not opening the mind to ultimate reality through mystical contemplation. To discover how the cosmos works, we must investigate the empirical facts by careful observation.
3. Because Scripture says that God created the heavens and the earth, it follows that the “heavenly bodies” are not (as Aristotle said) made of a substance different from the elements that comprise the earth, but are, on the contrary, of the same substance. (It is one of the many ironies in the history of the later conflicts between science and religion that when Galileo, as a result of his use of a telescope, decided that the moon was made of the same substance as the earth, he was condemned by the church because the church had meanwhile co-opted Aristotelian philosophy into its doctrine.)
4. Because of the work of Christ in the incarnation, we may use material means for the advancement of human salvation. The implication of this was that the church did not have to follow the Hebrew tradition of rejecting Greek medicine; instead, it could use Greek medicine in the development of the healing ministry which was to be such an important part of its work in succeeding centuries.
These four principles, which were to provide the foundation for the subsequent development of science in Europe (a science which was destined to outstrip the far more brilliant thinking of India, China, and the Arab world), were based on faith in the biblical revelation. They were part of the whole reconstitution of thought necessitated by the new fact, the action of God, the incarnation of the Word in Jesus Christ.
Lesslie Newbigin. Proper Confidence: Faith, Doubt, and Certainty in Christian Discipleship (Kindle Locations 95-97). Kindle Edition.
A Quick and Dirty History of the CRC Denominational Story
It’s easy when we lift our heads up from our local and classical ministries, when viewing this thing way off in GR to ask “how did that happen?” The ED position, together with the BOT emerged and was shaped by a long history of structural development. I know some of the story but there are others who know it better than I.
Stage 1: Synod, Classis, Council: The main ecclesiastical structure that we recognize in Reformed polity. CTS and the beginnings of Calvin College are formed to train pastors and Christian School teachers.
Stage 2: Agencies and Boards begin to emerge: Starts with “heathen missions” to Navajo and Chinese. Dutch immigrants with missional hearts trying to give shape to their mission through a collaborative agency. Through Johanna Veenstra from Hopper St. Paterson NJ (I say proudly) imaginations energize and people organize. CRWM and CRHM will emerge from this.
Stage 3: Institution Building: The middle of the 20th Center will find the CRC affluent and growing, employing new wealth, new learning, new skills to and other good ideas like media ministry (BTGMI) and diaconal ministry (CRWRC-World Renew), Pubs, and plenty of other efforts either within or outside the organizational structure come along side the church to strengthen the community and organize it’s impact into the broader world.
Stage 4: “Why can’t we work better together”. Rumors of CRWM and CRWRC not being able to fully collaborate overseas begins a process of asking whether we an work more effectively and efficiently by having these agencies work together. There are some obvious overlaps that can be address administratively. Synodical Interim Committee gets morphed into the BOT. General Secretary model gets morphed into ED. Through this process it’s clear that the CRC has some reluctance about consolidating power.
Stage 5: “One Board to Rule Them All”: Agency boards have classically based boards where all agencies are expending resources on holding 2 large meetings a year, lodging, travel costs, etc. on these large boards that function partly as donor bases, somewhat as governing boards. Who really rules these agencies? Board downsize and get more energetic in governance. How do these boards relate to the Synod-BOT-ED line of authority and how do they relate to delegated classical (now regional) authority? Agency directors are appointed jointly by agency board and BOT? Where does the ED fit? Jesus says “no one can serve two masters” but “Jesus” speaks through Synod and the agency board?
Today: The obviousness of boomer style management recedes as that generation enters retirement. Busters begin to challenge boomer models. Questions emerge about structure and culture. How can this be church when it feels so much like business? ED candidate withdrawing heightens the conversation.
Others can tweak or improve this little narrative. We have the structure we do because of our culture and history. What will the next steps be? We inherit these things from those who came before. They changed what they received to give us what we have today. We will change what we receive and turn it over to those who follow. What shall we do?