Elaine (Lain) Martinez Vasquez

Hey Kathy, 

Thanks for sharing your thoughts. I would like to address the 3 assumptions you believe I made in this article I've written. 

1. The assumption of equivalency between the account of the conflict between Paul and Barnabas and the current conflict within the CRCNA. I just want to clarify that in my article I was simply highlighting the strong parallels I personally saw or took away after analyzing the account of the Paul's and Barnabas' fall out and the current conflict within the CRCNA, not necessarily arguing for the complete equivalency between the two situations - though I suppose the way I worded some paragraphs perhaps gave you (and maybe others???) the impression I was trying to argue for the complete equivalency between these two situations. In fact, that is why I kept using nuanced phrases like:  "it seems like", "similar to", "it appears that perhaps", "churches like __", and "churches that seem to resemble/emulate/ correspond to __" . I was hoping doing this would be enough to indicate to readers of this article that I do recognize and am open to the idea that Acts 15:36 - 41 may not be the only biblical passage that churches in the CRCNA could find helpful to consider and learn from as they seek to figure out what their next steps should or need to be/ what is the best way forward for them in light of some of the significant synodical decisions that have been made over the last couple of years. I suppose it wasn't though, so... my bad. That's on me. Also, I would love to hear more in depth about how you see parallels between the early churches' struggle with the requirement of circumcision and the current conflict the CRCNA is dealing with. I am genuinely interested in gaining a better understanding of your own observations on this. 
2.  The assumption that both groups will be "stronger". Again, I just want to emphasize that with this article, my intention was not to convey the message that I think if the CRCNA does separate into 2 or more denominations down the line, everything will - without a doubt - play out exactly in same way as it did for the early church with Paul and Barnabas - including in what ways each group becomes "stronger" or to what extent each group becomes "stronger" in a certain sense - if at all. Now, could it be the case that if the denomination split, the outcomes would mirror the outcomes of the separation of Paul and Barnabas? Sure. But do I know with a 100% certainty that if the denomination were to split, the outcomes would mirror the separation of Paul and Barnabas? No, I do not, as I cannot predict the future. Hence, the main message I was hoping people might take away from this article was a bit more nuanced than that. Namely, the key points I really wanted to get across is that :1) I think a peaceful separation of the denomination is an option that should to be given some real and thorough consideration by the various churches in the CRCNA and 2) that no matter what  various churches of the CRCNA decide to do - whether they decide to stay or decide to leave to join other denominations or form a new one of their own, or something else - I wholeheartedly believe that God is going to continue to watch over every single one of them, and work in and through them in some way, because time and time again in scripture (and in my own life) God has revealed himself to be a God who very much can use any situation, and anything, and anyone for his glory - even the most unlikely of situations, things, and people. Additionally, in regards to some of the other things you mentioned in your 2nd point (i.e. suggesting that discussions regarding a peaceful separation could lead to churches reflecting on whether being in full alignment with the church's doctrine on homosexuality is even central to salvation or not and... if not, re-evaluating whether it warrants confessional status), I reckon I should've probably been more detailed in my description of the churches that seem to emulate Barnabas. That fact is, most of the churches who seem to correspond to Barnabas are the same churches that thought that Synod 2022's decision to declare of its interpretation of the word "unchastity" in the H.C as having confessional status was a step too far and sent overtures to Synod 2023 requesting that Synod 2023 reverse Synod 2022’s declaration that this interpretation has confessional status and declare instead that Synod 2022’s interpretation of “unchastity” be considered as “settled and binding” as a synodical interpretation. And given what happened at Synod 2023 concerning these overtures, it is evident to me that a good majority of churches probably won't be open to the idea of revisiting the topic of whether this particular interpretation should have confessional status or not. 
3. The assumption of minimum damage from a peaceful separation. I would like to point out that no where in this article, do I say that a separation - even a peaceful one - will be less painful or significantly reduce the challenges and struggles the denomination will face compared to another course of action, because I'm not really the type of person that would make such a judgement or conclusion without - as you said - doing a comprehensive study on the potential impacts a peaceful separation of the CRCNA into 2+ different denominations would have on different congregations, classes, and people groups in the CRCNA and agencies affiliated with the CRCNA and comparing the results of this study with the results of studies done on the potential impacts of alternative courses of action ( ideally in collaboration with other people). Like you Kathy, I prefer making and would like to see churches in our denomination strive to make fully informed decisions as opposed to partially informed decisions whenever possible... for I have similarly learned and seen that when people make decisions based on incomplete or limited information there is a greater risk of them being decisions that will produce more negative results than positive results.  
   
   
   
    

Hey, Gary. Thank you for your comment. I just wanted to clarify that with this article I wasn't necessarily suggesting our church denomination (or any church denomination for that matter) is/will be made stronger after experiencing a split - or at least not stronger in the sense I believe you meant by "stronger". Actually, If you don't mind, could you elaborate on what you mean by "stronger"? I would appreciate having a clearer understanding of what you mean so I know if I'm following correctly or not. 

Oh, I see. Thanks for the clarification. By real growth I was mostly referring to the spiritual growth and relational growth of communities within our denomination as opposed to the physical growth of the denomination as a whole. I apologize for the confusion. I understand that a good deal of people think of strength primarily in terms of numbers - and yes, there is of course is such a thing as strength in number, and this type of strength is important. But is it the only type of strength? No, it is not. And is it (always) the most important type of strength? Honestly, over the years, I have began to seriously question that. I've come to see that the size of a church and other types of organizational bodies doesn't automatically indicate how strong of an impact they can have on the community or communities that they are part of - for better or for worse - or how good they are at fostering fellowship, trust, and cohesion among people that are part of them. I do hope this helps clarify things on your end. 

Hey Lloyd,

I'll be honest - it is possible I could have misunderstood some of the things I read, watched, and heard during and following Synod 2023 from some people in the CRCNA. But... I don't know. For example, recently I watched a podcast by a person - a reverend I believe - from Abide who said something along the lines of believing that people can/should be able to become members or remain members of the CRCNA if - and only if, it sounded like- they meet the following criteria (which they mentioned is outlined in a report from Acts of Synod 1963):

1. They agree wholeheartedly with Reformed Church theology except on the point of direct biblical evidence for the doctrine in question they have reservations for 
2. They are willing to be further instructed in the Reformed doctrine/ remain "teachable" AND
3. They commit to not propagating any views conflicting with the doctrinal position of the church/commit to not undermining the teaching of the doctrinal position of the church they have reservations for 

The problem with this approach though in this particular situation the denomination is in, is that the people in the CRCNA who are unable to fully affirm the synodical interpretation of the word unchastity in Q&A 108 of the Catechism are not simply folks who have their doubts or are uncertain about the complete accuracy of the interpretation, but include folks who fully disagree with it because they strongly hold or have come to a different view on homosexuality but are respectful about their disagreement and/or are sincerely willing to completely abide by the interpretation anyway, for the sake of the denomination. 

Furthermore, those who fall into this latter group of people are often those who already have a solid or clear understanding of what the CRCNA's position on homosexuality is and the biblical grounds of which it is based on. How can these people be expected to remain "teachable" if they have already been taught all there is to know about the certain doctrine of the church they have difficulty with? 

Moreover, as I mentioned, there are churches in the CRCNA that would very much like office-bearers who have a difficulty with this specific synodical interpretation that has confessional status to be able to serve. So, it is not too far of a stretch to assume they'd also like to give members who are unable to fully affirm this specific synodical interpretation for either of the reasons I previously described (and I want to stress that I mean this specific synodical interpretation alone - because again, this really seems to be the the only main area of confessional conflict churches in the CRCNA are dealing with) and members that do; an equal opportunity to become office-bearers in the future if possible. However, that's not something that can be done given how church polity works currently right?