As I have been preparing the messages for our evening services, working through the creation narrative in Genesis, I learned something I had not known before. The word, “created,” in Genesis 1:1 (In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth) is used only of God in the Bible. Not once does any biblical author apply the Hebrew word which is translated as “create” to human beings or any other living thing. Only God creates. There are other words that are ascribed to both God and people (words that can also be translated as “made,” for example), but the act of creating is ascribed to God alone.

Scholars who have studied this word have come to the conclusion that the Hebrew word is as much a theological word as it is a description of an action. Yes, creating is an act of God, but the word also says something about the nature and mind of God. The act of creating shows us God’s intentionality as he brings about something entirely new, something that has not existed before. The universe did not exist, but God began to create, intentionally providing an environment of space and time and filling that space and time with an inhabitable world which he then filled with all sorts of living things, including humanity. By searching on the Hebrew word in the Old Testament, every time God creates, a new situation is brought into being, one that had not been in existence before.

We, as human beings, do not do that. Our creative acts are not original, for we only have the ability to take what already is and form it into something else. An artist, with great skill, can make a painting of a river, but all she is doing is rearranging some coloured chemicals on a canvas. A builder can construct a house, and it can be entirely original in design, but that house is made of things that have already existed. He is simply rearranging part of creation to make them into something else. We do not create, at least not in the sense that God creates. When God creates, something new is made, something that did not exist before.

In the second part of Isaiah’s prophecy (beginning at chapter 40), God’s creative act moves beyond the mere physical world to the creation of a new nation from among the nations. In Isaiah 43:1, we read that God created the nation of Israel, and although Israel appeared to be one nation among many, she was, in fact, a new creation by God as God called Abraham from among the nations and made his descendants, the sons of Jacob, into a nation. God chose Abraham, and biblical scholars see a strong parallel between this creative act of God in forming Israel into a nation and the teaching on election. As we know from passages like Deuteronomy 26:5ff. and others, that as God chose Abraham from among all the peoples of the world, he entered into covenant with him and made him into a nation, beginning with the first miraculous act of giving Abraham and Sarah a son in their old age. God elected Abraham to eventually become a nation, and God’s election is akin to his act of creation.

Election refers to God’s intentional decision to create a people belonging to himself out of all the people of this world. While there are many communities of people in our world, communities created because of commonalities (family, classmates, work buddies, soccer moms, neighbourhoods, etc.), the community that have in common faith in Jesus Christ is unique because it is created by God. Election, thus, is God’s creative act in which he makes something entirely new, not reconfiguring or reshaping something that already exists.

When Paul says, “If anyone is in Christ, new creation!” (2 Corinthians 5:17), he uses this language specifically to show that a Christian is not merely a reshaped person but an entirely new person, created by God through Jesus Christ. We become new persons, not merely reworked old persons, indicating that the salvation we have in Jesus is more far-reaching and deeper than might appear on the outside. In fact, we can say that we become entirely different persons when, by God’s grace and the powerful working of the Holy Spirit, we come to faith. It would be wrong, therefore, to assume that those who believe in Jesus and those who do not are somewhat the same kind of people with just a bit different perspective on life. We become new people, created by God as he chooses us to become his children. The radical nature of our salvation should never be understated, for the act of salvation is as significant as the act of creation. God does something new when he creates a people for himself out of all the peoples of the world.

We look forward to the goal and purpose of our salvation, the new creation which will be fully established when Jesus returns. In order for that new creation to be designated as “very good,” like the first creation was before sin twisted and marred it, everything in the new creation must also be of “new creation” quality, so in order to participate in that new creation, all that enters into it must have been created by God first. Thankfully, his work of salvation does exactly that, and we can be assured that when we are in Christ, we will fit well into that new creation.

God’s act of creation, then, is not merely an activity of God by which he makes the world. It is God doing something entirely new, something that was not done before, and something that cannot be done by human hands. This is also true of our salvation, and, by God’s grace in Jesus Christ and by the working of the Holy Spirit in us, we are made into something new, something that we cannot accomplish by ourselves.

The church is Christ’s gift to us. I have heard those words many times, but I heard them again at synod, which I attended last week. I had not really thought about what that meant, and I suspect I am not alone. In fact, it seems increasingly that Christians do not see the church as God’s gift; more and more Christians are perceiving that the church is part of the problem.

How do we understand the word, “church”? There are at least three definitions. The first refers to the building, but we all know that the building is not the church. The second refers to the people: those who believe in Jesus and seek to follow him are the church. This is the best definition of the word, “church.” There is a third definition that perceives the church to be an institution or an organization. This third definition might lead us to say something like this: the church decided that it would no longer hold evening services. In this last understanding, we perceive that the church is rather like a business. A parallel statement might be: the business decided that it would sell lumber only to contractors who had an account with them. In this third definition, the church is somewhat equated with its leadership, the decision makers.

It is the third definition, understanding the church as an organization or institution that has caused many to rethink their relationship to the church. “I do not want to be part of the church,” they say, indicating that they don’t want to belong to an organized church. Similarly, they might say, “I can be a Christian without the church.” Again, what they mean is that they do not want to participate in the organized church and it’s not that they don’t want to associate with other Christians.

When we hear the phrase, “The church is Christ’s gift to us,” we might question the truth of that statement if we think of the church mostly in terms of it being an organization or an institution. If we look at history, it doesn’t take us long to determine that there are many times when the church, as an institution, did not serve the people very well. Often times the decisions of the church (made by the leadership) served to harm the people more than they did to help them. It has been said by some that they would be happy to be a Christian if it weren’t for the church.

It is sometimes hard to disagree with those who feel disenfranchised by the church, especially as they think about the church as an institution. It does not feel like Christ’s gift to them, and the more institutional it becomes, the less like a gift it seems to be.

Of course, no church can exist without some kind of organization. In fact, no three people can spend time doing anything together without some kind of organization. When people gather, there needs to be someone to take a leadership role and guide the group. That often takes the form of setting an agenda, facilitating discussion, and clarifying direction. A church is no different in that regard, but the leadership of the church must carefully consider how it does its work. The leadership of the church, we believe in the CRC, has been set in place by God to guide the members of the church (the real church) to grow in faith and to serve Christ. They may be called upon to set agenda, guide discussions, and give direction, but everything that they do is so that the followers of Jesus Christ grow in their faith and become more faithful in their service and witness to their Lord. While the leadership is called to have the best interests of the church in mind, the church they are thinking of is not the organization but the people. It is easy, however, for the leadership to begin to develop the mindset that they are there to serve the organization first, perhaps to the neglect of the people.

When we think of the church, we should always think of it in terms of it being the people of God and never in terms of it being an organization. While the institutional elements are inevitable, they are there only to ensure that the people of God can be the church effectively and faithfully. The organization serves the body, is another way of looking at it. When we think of the church as being the people, we recognize that it is Christ’s gift to us. We work alongside other believers, contending for the gospel, we hold each other accountable, we encourage each other, and we seek to be a witness to the world together. We cannot do that alone, and if we want to be faithful, we need each other. It is Christ’s gift to us, that we have each other. Consider what it would be like to live in a place with almost no followers of Jesus Christ and to have to maintain our faith all by ourselves. With the Holy Spirit in us, that is possible of course, but it makes all the difference to do this together with others.

We can celebrate the fact that the church is Christ’s gift to us. We benefit greatly from belonging to a church, and we rejoice that we do not practice our faith alone. We can also celebrate that Jesus Christ raises us leaders to help us become all that Christ meant us to be, rejoicing even when the church begins to take on institutional tones. As long as the organized part of the church serves to enable followers of Jesus Christ in their service and worship, we can see it as a gift. Only when the leaders begin to serve the institution should we be concerned. We always need to be reminded of what the church is, and as we are reminded, we can also celebrate that the church is Christ’s gift to his people.

Normally, when a pastor, elder or deacon is ordained to their office in the Christian Reformed Church, they must sign the Covenant for Officebearers before they can begin their work. The Covenant for Officebearers states that those who sign it believe that the Bible is the infallible and authoritative Word of God and that the confessions of the CRC (The Belgic Confession, the Heidelberg Catechism, and the Canons of Dort) accurately reflect the teachings of Scripture. By having all officebearers in the denomination sign this document, we can be assured that we all have a similar theology thus enabling churches to work together.

But what happens when someone believes that the confessions do not reflect the teachings of Scripture? Can they challenge something that the Belgic Confession or Heidelberg Catechism says? Our confessions are human documents, of course, and they do not have the same status or authority or infallibility as the Bible. Is it possible to disagree with them, but what happens if someone does?

To deal with this eventuality, the CRC decided to implement a procedure by which someone can challenge the teachings of the confessions. Instead of naming the procedure with a common English word, the powers that be decided to use a Latin word, “gravamen.” We get our word, “grievance,” from the same source, but a gravamen is not really a grievance. Rather, it’s a concern that the confessions are not correct in their interpretation of Scripture. Once an officebearer has “filed a gravamen,” there are two possible courses that can be followed.

First, the officebearer might simply be struggling with a particular teaching (e.g. infant baptism is a common one), and he might want to have some discussions about how infant baptism is supported by Scripture. This is known as a confessional difficulty gravamen, meaning that he has some difficulty with the teaching of the confession. His council responds to this difficulty by providing teaching that is designed to help him understand how the church arrived at the teaching about infant baptism. It is hoped that the individual will learn and the difficulties he has been having will subside.

If an elder, let’s say, is struggling with a particular teaching, he can remain in office until he has finished his term, but he cannot be ordained again until the difficulty is resolved. If he cannot be persuaded that the teaching of the confessions is biblical, he cannot become an elder, deacon, or pastor again, although he can remain a faithful member of the church. It is always the hope that through good teaching and counsel, the church can help people resolve their difficulties with our understanding of Scripture.

There is a second possible response: perhaps the elder or deacon or pastor is absolutely convinced that the particular teaching of the confessions is in error, and they believe it so strongly that they feel it should be changed. In that case, the officebearer files a confessional revision gravamen in which he asks that the particular wording of the Belgic Confession, Heidelberg Catechism, or Canons of Dort be changed so that it conforms to the teaching of Scripture.

Can this happen? Most assuredly, yes, although it does not happen easily. In both 1958 and 1985, paragraphs of the Belgic Confession, Article 36 (pertaining to the relationship of the government to the church), were put into the footnotes because, biblically speaking, they were incorrect. They remain in the footnotes only so that the historical document is preserved.

Why is this all important? There are several reasons it is. First, we want to be assured that what our church teaches is biblical, and we want our confessions to accurately reflect the teachings of Scripture. If they don’t, we should feel free to change them. Changes, however, don’t happen quickly because the confessions have been around for almost 500 years and they have withstood the test of time and the scrutiny of millions of believers. Second, the Bible is often misinterpreted, and when it is, people are led astray. The confessions help us remain faithful to the teachings of Scripture, and if we find ourselves disagreeing with the confessions, we must first determine if our understanding of Scripture is correct. Perhaps we have misread Scripture. Third, the confessions help us remain united. They are often called the Three Forms of Unity, meaning that all who hold to them are can feel united as we read and obey Scripture together. Fourth, and importantly, when our elders, deacons, and pastor sign the Covenant for Officebearers, they are saying that the teachings of Scripture are important and authoritative and that they are going to do their best to be instructed by them.

This year at Synod, we will be dealing with two confessional revision gravamina (plural of gravamen), one of which is asking for a revision to the Heidelberg Catechism and one which is asking for a revision to the Belgic Confession. What synod will decide, I do not know, but I am thankful for this: there are many in our denomination who take the Word of God very seriously and who want the teachings of the church to accurately reflect what God has revealed to us. Even if they are not accepted and if our confessions are not changed, they will give rise to some good discussion, and, by God’s grace, the church will be strengthened in its understanding of God’s Word.

Deuteronomy 6 gives two motivations that are meant to move the Israelites to obedience. The first is found in verse 5 where we read that they are to love the LORD, their God with all their heart, soul, and mind. A few verses later, in verse 13, the Israelites are told to fear the LORD their God and serve him only. These verses indicate that either loving or fearing the Lord will lead to obedience.

As we consider these two motivators, it is important that we read what follows. Following the command to love God, the text goes on to say that the Israelites are to find ways to remember what God has said by repeating God’s commands to their children, by talking about them at home and on the road, and by placing written copies in prominent places such as doorframes and gate posts. The text reminds the Israelites what God did for them by giving them a land in which to live which they did not have to clear of trees or build roads or houses. All that was provided for them by God. Their love is founded on God’s prior provision for them.

The second command, to fear the Lord, is followed up by a warning to not follow other gods or question the Lord’s ability to provide for his people. The Lord is a jealous God, we read, meaning that he carefully guards his relationship with his people and does not look kindly on people going elsewhere to find help when he is the best provider. In cultures which recognize a whole pantheon of gods, people were encouraged to find the best god to meet their purposes because those gods, although believed to be capable in some areas, were not proficient in others. The Lord, however, is capable in all areas, and God didn’t want his people to turn to less capable gods. God’s jealousy, then, was meant for his people’s good, for he wanted the best for them, and he was the best. The text says that if his people do turn away from him, his anger would be aroused, and when God is angry, his people should fear him. Thus, to avoid God’s anger, his people should turn to him as their only God.

In a sense, this all boils down to loyalty. God is calling his people to be loyal to him, and loyalty is expressed in obedience to his commands. God’s commands, as we know, are not simply random legalistic requirements but, rather, are designed to cause his people to flourish. Considering all that God had done for his people, he had every reason to expect them to be loyal to him. Loyal people want to please the one who has blessed them, and thus, the Israelites would want to know what God expected of them, so at the same time, when God had done everything for his people, and they became disloyal, he had every reason to be angry with them.

Loyalty to the Lord seemed to be a problem for the Israelites. They repeatedly turned to other gods because it seemed to them that those other gods might offer a bit more than what they could get from the Lord. They had a hard time being loyal even though the other gods never really gave them anything. They were disloyal, and it showed in how they lived. The moment that they began to consider turning to other gods, they also began to forget what the Lord had done for them, and they also stopped caring what he said. Loyalty is something that must be earned, and God had done everything to earn it, but the people had a tendency to ignore his provision.

Loyalty is something that is in high demand today. We hear about loyalty programs offered by businesses to keep customers coming back. Buy six coffees and get the seventh free. Use our credit card, and we give you points that you can redeem. This kind of loyalty is rather fake because it is not based on what is real. If the coffee is good and the price is reasonable, people will return. The promise of a free coffee will not cause people to return if the coffee is bad. Earning points is nice, but fair treatment by the credit card company is far more important.

God does not try to earn our loyalty by offering us points or by assuring us that if we keep coming back to him, he will do something nice for us. God earns our loyalty by providing a product that is real, to put it in terms of commerce. What God has done for us is provide us with something that cannot be matched. While there are all kinds of salvation (salvation from financial difficulty, salvation from loneliness, salvation from illness, etc.), there is only one kind of salvation that is truly the kind we need. It is knowing that God is with us no matter what life may bring, and it is knowing that when we die, we will have eternal life. It is God’s commitment to us that is our salvation, and that salvation is centered and rooted in Jesus Christ. No other god, no human being, no institution can give us what God has already given to us. It is the same for us as it was for the Israelites in the Old Testament. It is because of what God has done for us and continues to do for us that makes us loyal.

Our loyalty, then, is expressed in our eagerness to do his will. It is seen in absolute reliance on him instead of reliance on other things. We show our loyalty by living for Jesus. But what happens when we are not loyal, when we start to depend on others instead of God? Yes, God is a jealous God, and he becomes angry, and sometimes he reveals his anger to us, but it is in those times that his anger is for our good, for we know that he is angry with us like a parent is angry with their child for doing something that results in self-endangerment or self-harm. It is an anger that is meant to bring us back to what is good and right.

It is loyalty that God asks of us, and it is loyalty that we can be confident to give, for God has earned it by being good to us. We are motivated to obedience by our love for God, but, if we fail to do that, we can also expect God’s anger, anger that results from our breaking a relationship with him, an anger that is designed to make us loyal to him again. God wants us to be loyal to him, for it is to our benefit that we are, and it is to his glory when we are.

As I was reading through the Agenda for Synod, a 425 page book, I came across an overture that synod is being asked to consider. (An overture is a request for a change in the way we do things in the Christian Reformed Church.) This overture is requesting that we include as the first item in the description of a pastor and elder is that they be devoted to prayer. Normally overtures address some lack or problem within the denomination, and this particular one made me ask, “Is someone concerned that pastors and other church leaders are not praying?” I had the opportunity to ask why this particular overture was being presented, and I discovered why: it wasn’t because church leaders weren’t praying; rather, it was because our official documents do not emphasize prayer as being a foundational aspect of the church.

As I read through the background of the overture, I began to understand this a little better. Citing 1 Thessalonians 5:16-18 and referencing a number of other statements in Paul’s letter, the overture says that Paul regularly prayed for the churches. In fact, New Testament scholar, Gordon Fee, says that before Paul engaged in any missionary work, before he taught the churches or wrote a letter, he prayed. Prayer was the foundation for his ministry.

A number of years ago, I attended a seminar about ministering effectively as a church, and the leader said that if the church is going to do its work well, it must first pray. Specifically, he said that councils who seek to lead the church must first spend time in reflection on God’s Word and in prayer. He noted that a 5-minute devotion was not really sufficient but that a council, if it is going to make good decisions, must first spend significant time in reflection on God’s Word and in prayer. He noted from his experience that a council which commits itself to at least 20 minutes of prayer and reflection on God’s Word will more likely make better decisions more quickly and be more focused on what is important. It has been my experience that he is right. Church councils change every year in their composition as elders and deacons come and go, and in one church, that particular year, the elders and deacons devoted themselves to prayer and reflection, and generally the decisions were made with greater ease and with a sense of comfort on the part of the council members. Things ran more smoothly and, often, the meeting was over much sooner than meetings that did not begin with a significant time of prayer.

I must confess that I have a lot to learn about prayer and how to pray well. Over the past 4 months I have been part of a cohort in which we learned a new way of praying, one that is based on a passage of Scripture. Leaders choose a passage from Scripture (a psalm, parable or paragraph from one of the epistles), and drawing upon the themes from that passage, they put together a prayer guide in which those themes become the foundation for the prayer. For example, if using Psalm 23, the leader would then give a few sentences to help those who are praying focus their prayers. He might use phrases such as “Lord, we experience you as a shepherd when. . .” and “Guide me in right paths as I . . .” Those who were in the group use those sentences to direct their thoughts as they prayed. Our sessions in that cohort would begin with prayer that lasted about half an hour or a little more, but because we were directed in our prayers, they never grew dull or seemed long. I learned a great deal about prayer by being part of this cohort, and I feel better equipped to both pray personally and to lead others in prayer.

Each session of the cohort focused on a different theme, and in the last session, we reflected on how prayer is experiencing the presence of God. The leader of the session, Jon, noted that as Christians we often feel that we need to be doing things in order to fulfill our calling. There is truth to that, of course, for if we are not active, nothing will get done. Before we do things, however, Jon suggested, we should first spend time acknowledging God’s presence with us. If the personal part is not there, the rest becomes tasks which can seem unfulfilling. One of the group commented that this should not surprise us because the same is true of our interactions with others.

A few years ago, the church I was part of joined together with other churches to help people with their spring yardwork. Some of those who received help had cancer, others had disabilities, and still others were elderly. Before we began to clean the yard, however, we spent a few moments talking to the homeowner, getting to know them and hearing their stories. As we talked together, we developed a relationship, and when we did begin our work, we did so with a stronger sense of commitment and a deeper compassion for the one we were helping. And the homeowner also experienced fulfilment as he/she watched the group rake the leaves, turn over the flower beds and clean up the litter. Serving is about relationship first, and the same holds true with God as it does with others.

As I reflect on the meetings I have attended in all the churches I have served, nearly all of them begin with prayer, and that is good. However, the prayer sometimes is little more than perfunctory, meaning that we sort of baptize the meeting with a brief Scripture reading and then praying “for a minute.” That does not seem to be what Paul meant when he spoke of himself and the church “being devoted to prayer.”

So, back to the overture: I began to understand why it is the Agenda for Synod. It may be true that churches and church leaders are not devoted to prayer but, rather, are merely baptizing their meetings in prayer without really experiencing the presence of God. If that is the case, then we do see the necessity of such an overture. It may also be the case that we simply need to be reminded that the foundation of all we do both as individual believers and as the church must be founded on the relationship we have with God, a relationship that is developed and strengthened through prayer. This is a most important reminder, one that we could do well to follow.

Last week, on one of the windy days, the air was white with the salt blowing from the salt flats north of town. One person who drove through there said that the blowing salt reduced the visibility to near white-out conditions. While considered to be a problem today, not so many centuries ago the salt in the salt flats would have been harvested and sold at considerable profit.

Our English word, salary, comes from the Latin word that also gives us the word, “salt.” We have forgotten the roots, but it used to be that the pay given to soldiers was called “salt money” because with their pay they could buy salt which was much more valuable then than it is today.

That salt was valuable only makes sense if we consider what life would be like without refrigeration. In years past, farmers, when they butchered a cow or a hog, because they could not eat the meat before it spoiled, would preserve it in layers of salt. If they did not have salt at hand, the valuable meat, food for the winter, would rot, and the farmer and his family would starve. Salt, although not a food source, was valuable for its preserving qualities. Today, this never crosses our minds. In fact, if you read the website of the largest salt mine in the world, located in Goderich, Ontario, a mine that produced nine million tons of salt each year, the main use of that salt is for de-icing roads and, to a lesser extent, in manufacturing processes, but it does not mention salt as a preservative. The salt deposit was discovered in 1866 when oil men were drilling for oil near Lake Huron.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus tells us that we are the salt and light of the world (Matthew 5:13-16). Unless we hear those words in their historical context, we will miss their import. We already know that salt, often in short supply, was valuable for its preserving qualities, but we should also consider the high price people paid for light. In biblical times, long before petroleum was discovered, light was produced by the burning of olive oil. I have not squeezed a fresh olive for its oil, but I cannot imagine that it would produce more than a few drops of oil. Imagine how many olives would have to be harvested and squeezed if we were forced to light our homes with olive oil rather than with efficient LED lighting. I suspect that most rooms in our homes would remain dark, and our ire would be roused at anyone who left a lamp burning for a few seconds longer than needed.

Both salt and light were very valuable commodities, but living in 2026, we give little thought to either as being precious. In fact, salt is considered to be an enemy, for we are warned that too much of it will give us high blood pressure and when we use it on the roads, it eats away at our cars. In some places, light pollution has become so much of a problem that some people never experience true darkness and have never seen the stars.

So, what does Jesus mean that we are the salt and light of the world? It means that Jesus sees his followers as being valuable to the world. It means that without his followers, those who believe in him, the world would rot, and no one would be able to find their way. The claim that Jesus is making is far more than casual; he is making the claim that the world cannot live without the church. This is a fairly audacious claim to be making.

Many people would make the claim that the church is irrelevant, and some would even say that it is dangerous. There are those who say that the church (and more broadly, religion) is destroying the world. Like salty roads and over-lit cities, there is a belief that the church is ruining the world and is causing more harm than good.

Immediately, we want to discredit that claim and point to all the good that the church is doing. We can do that, but we also need to listen carefully to those who raise these objections to determine if there is any validity in them. Is there legitimacy in saying that the church, as it sometimes manifests itself today, is causing more harm than good? Has it lost its value for the world and, instead, become an organization which has become destructive? We would hope not, but Jesus does allude to the possibility that this can be the case.

As soon as he says we are the salt of the world, he warns us that salt that has lost its saltiness is good for nothing except to be tossed into the garbage. Salt, if it had lost its preservative qualities, became worthless. In the same way, someone who lights a lamp containing valuable oil and immediately placing it under a bowl was creating light that was worthless. If salt and light are not used for their intended purpose, they become useless, and, in the same way, if the church does fulfill its intended purpose, it becomes of little value, and, if valueless, then it also becomes a burden to society.

The only way we can discern if the church is fulfilling its intended purpose is to determine what that purpose is. Jesus alludes to that in Matthew 5:16 when he says that when we let our light shine, others may see our good deeds and glorify our Father in heaven. To put it simply, the calling of the church and each person in it is to do good deeds and in so doing be a witness to the goodness and grace of God. As Paul says in Ephesians 4, in speaking to the role of those who have been called and gifted to be church leaders, all believers are to be equipped for works of service so that the body of Christ may be built up. Saying it another way, the calling and purpose of the church is to make Jesus known to the world, both in our testimony and in our lifestyles, so that God can gather people to himself and bring to fullness the body of Christ.

If the church loses that understanding and if it becomes self-seeking, self-aggrandizing, self-righteous, and self-centered, it loses sight of its purpose. As followers of Jesus Christ, we are placed here in this world for the singular purpose of revealing God the Father to the world, that the world may know his grace in Jesus Christ. If we, as followers of Jesus Christ do that, we are indeed extremely valuable to the world, just as salt and light were essential to the world in Jesus’ time. But it is only in the fulfilment of our calling that the people of God have value. And, so, we might wonder if those who say that the church is worthless might have a point. If the church is not fulfilling its calling, Jesus might well agree with them, although, unlike them, he would not wish to see the church abolished but, rather, to see it become what God intended it to be.

I am thinking of these things in terms of black and white, and perhaps that is an injustice to the church in general both now and through the ages. Nonetheless, we must pause and ask the question: are we as valuable to the world as we could be, and, if not, how can we provide value to the world which so much needs to know Jesus?

In a few weeks the Christian Reformed Church will be holding its annual synod. The word, “synod,” is one that I never use except to refer to this annual gathering of pastors, elders, and deacons. This made me curious about the origins and meaning of the word.

“Synod” has its origins in the Greek language, and it literally means, “on the way together.” The word, “synagogue,” beginning with “syn” (often translated from the Greek as “with”), translated literally, means “brought together.” Or, we might use the expression “in sync” which means that we are in agreement.

A synod, then, is a gathering together of people who are travelling together on the same road, figuratively speaking. We should not picture a synod as being a group of people who are on the same highway, but rather as people who are on the same road, perhaps coming from a variety of places but all heading to a common destination. The question that a synod will answer is this: because we are on the same road with a common destination, how do we address the various things we find on the road? It is usually assumed that those who attend a synod have a common understanding of Scripture and have a common direction and goal.

The first synod to be held in the Christian church was held in Jerusalem (Acts 15) at around 48-50 AD. Its president was the apostle James, and it was attended by both church leaders from Jerusalem and missionaries who had been bringing the gospel to distant parts of the world. All those in attendance had one thing in common, namely that they put their faith in Jesus Christ and that they wanted the world to know God’s grace. Unfortunately, an object had been found in the road: what requirements are placed on Gentiles who come to believe in Jesus? Do we need to ask them to obey the Old Testament laws (circumcision being the first law, but also attend the feasts, practices and celebration of the OT), essentially asking Gentiles to become Jews in practice and culture as they became Christians. The Jerusalem Council concluded that except for a few restrictions, Gentiles were free from practicing the OT law. Faith in Jesus Christ is what brings us into God’s family and keeps us there, not adherence to OT laws.

As the years passed, more synods were held, addressing a number of topics. The word, “synod,” was not used but was substituted with the word, “council,” which implies that those in attendance were gathered to deliberate together to determine what the Bible said about various topics. In the early 4^th century, for example, a council/synod was held in Nicea in which the topic of the nature and person of Jesus Christ was discussed. The question: what Jesus just like God or was he truly God. The council, after consulting Scripture, concluded that Jesus is God, the second Person of the Trinity.

Following divisions in the Christian church (1054 AD) into the eastern and western parts and the shattering of the western church into multiple fragments in the centuries following the Reformation, it has become seemingly impossible for the Christian church to call a synod in which all Christians from around the world are represented. It is perceived that not all churches are on the same road, although most would agree that all Christian churches have the same goal, namely, to make Jesus known to the world and to live in obedience to him. After the Reformation, denominations began to hold their own synods (councils), working within themselves to face the obstacles placed in their way by culture and the world. Thus, the Christian Reformed Synod is attended by members of the Christian Reformed Church in North America, although, at each synod, representatives from other churches of the reformed traditions are invited to attend as well. The CRC synod deals specifically with issues faced by our denomination.

It might be interesting to note that at one time in the not-so-distant past, there was something called the “Reformed Ecumenical Synod,” later known as the “Reformed Ecumenical Council,” in which churches from around the world who were of the reformed tradition, gathered together to discuss the issues that faced us in common. Good discussions were held about a variety of issues although, unlike in the denominational synod, the conclusions were not seen as binding for all members. That synod/council has since been disbanded and replaced with a weaker body which tends to avoid the more robust conversations of the past, much to the loss of churches of the reformed tradition.

The purpose of a synod, thus, is to provide like-minded churches the opportunity to gather together to talk about how it is that followers of Jesus Christ can live faithfully in the world into which God has placed us. Over the years our synod has served the churches well by addressing questions raised in the churches through careful searching of God’s Word and by robust conversation. We do so as we recognize that we are on the same road together, trusting in Jesus Christ as our Saviour and Lord and seeking to have others know that as well. It is always best that we gather together to talk about those things that face the church in our time and place, for it is often in the voices of others that we hear God’s voice. Knowing that we are the road together, heading toward the same goal gives us a sense of assurance that as we navigate life with fellow believers, we do so with the best wisdom available to us, wisdom that has been given to us by the Spirit as he works in the hearts and lives of fellow believers.