Crucial Conversations at Synod, Part II

  There is a concerning trend occurring within our denomination, which is our inability to have what Joseph Grenny calls “Crucial Conversations.” A Crucial Conversation is defined as any moment in which there are at least one of three factors at play: 

1. Strong opposing opinions, 
2. High stakes, and/or 
3. Strong emotions. 

Our denomination has been struggling with how to engage the topic of human sexuality in a way that is reflective of us walking in the way of Jesus, “…filled with grace and truth.” (John 1:14) In that way, human sexuality can be described as a topic with: strong opposing opinions, incredibly high stakes, and very strong emotions! [Can I get an “Amen!”?] 

Consider how the argument is typically framed:

• Members who hold an affirming position are concerned with adopting a posture of Christ-like love to men and women who are made in the image and likeness of God. 
• Members who hold to the traditional/historical position are concerned with affirming the whole truth of God. 

Both sense that the stakes are incredibly high, and that getting this wrong would create a chain of perilous events that would adversely affect the church that we love, and the people we care about. Thus, failure is not an option. 

As a result, there is a strong desire to fight for what we believe in. After all, the stakes are just so high! We’re not talking about some hypothetical topic like, ‘How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?’ We are talking about people who are made in God’s image: people with same sex attraction (or have family members with SSA), people who are affirming, people who hold traditional/historical views, single people, married people, divorced people, re-married people, people who identify as trans, people with addictions to pornography, people who are eager to talk about this topic, people who’d rather run and hide (or get a root canal) than talk about this topic. But all of us, people. And I have yet to meet a Christian in our denomination who disagrees with this statement: 

How we respond is important—not just in what we profess to believe, but how we live that out—because how we respond reflects the heart of God. 

…or, at least, it should, right?

Thus, I can understand why all members of the CRCNA are joined together in one central idea – Failure is not an option. We must get this right! 

Why, then, does it seem like the more we talk about this issue, the further divided we become?

My goal in writing this article is not to address what we believe on the topic of human sexuality, or even why (though, I think it only fair for you to know my theological view on the topic of Human Sexuality. I preached a 9-week series on this topic to my congregation in 2023. You can find that series HERE). My goal is to propose two ideas that would help us in how to move forward to have more robust, and profitable, crucial conversations for the health and vibrancy of the church we love. They are as follows:

1. A Movement Toward Micro Conversations on Worldviews over Macro Arguments on Moral Issues (which can be found HERE), and

2. When Macro Arguments is the only option, applying best practices to achieve a more robust ecclesiology (which we will review in this post)

In this post, lets talk about When Macro Arguments are the only option…

Sometimes we must have macro conversations on moral issues. Synod is no exception. The work of Synod is vital to the proper functioning of our denomination. So, when our hand is forced into a macro conversation, how can we still apply best practices? I would like to present my top three suggestions:

1. Greater understanding of the mandate of Synod
Perhaps you’ve heard it been said that “Every disappointment is a failure to meet/set expectations.” In my observation, there is a significant misunderstanding about the function of Synod. Allow me to give an example: 

In your body there are both red and white blood cells. Red blood cells pick up oxygen as blood passes through the lungs and release it to the cells in the body. They are the “networking” cells. Comparatively, white blood cells fight off bacteria and viruses. They are “defending” cells. The body needs both. Well, so do churches and denominations. 

That said, the purpose of Synod is to function almost exclusively in a “white blood cell” fashion, which is to define, in writing, the tenets of the Christian faith, which are then applied in local “networking” congregations. In that way, Synod seeks to function much like how the law, or a sports rulebook, functions. 

• The law (of scripture, and of the land) says, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’ 
• The NBA rulebook says, ‘Thou shalt not kick opposing players where the sun doesn’t shine.’ 
• Likewise, as a confessional church, the purpose of Synod is to help define the boundaries, or legal limits, to what is permissible in Christian life, within which we commit to hold one another accountable.

In my view, there is a very strong expectation for Synod to function as a “red blood cell” environment which creates a lot of confusion and, like expressed above, an inherent temptation to apply negative motives with people with which we disagree, which is slander.

Regardless of your theological view on the topic of human sexuality, the misunderstanding in these particular moments is that Synod is seeking to have a conversation about biblical interpretation (white blood cells) when, very clearly, many are seeking to have a “red blood cell” conversation about a perceived application of said biblical interpretation within a local context. Please hear me: I am not seeking to be dismissive of how certain policies (or "articles") might adversely affect human beings made in God’s image and likeness. We absolutely should! We are fallible human beings who sometimes get things wrong. But Synod has procedures to address such a concern. A process that is more akin to the goals of Synod would be: 

1. To vote your conscience at Synod, and then 
2. To either individually, or with a group of likeminded members of the CRCNA, to write an overture to Synod the following year with an alternate perspective on biblical interpretation, for Synod to (again) review, always seeking to keep scripture as the ultimate authority of our lives. 

Perhaps you like the idea of having Synod function more in a “red blood cell” fashion. I have colleagues and friends who have advocated as such. Then, the denomination would be held together by certain shared core values and initiatives, but each congregation can opt “in” our “out” as they please. The driving focus would move from our current model of “shared accountability” (i.e. holding one another accountable to our shared theological convictions) to one of “networking” (i.e. low levels of accountability, with a focus on shared core values that hold us together). There are denominations/networks that function like that. My point in saying all that is: that is not our current practice. 

In our denomination, our practice is more in view with Dietrich Bonhoeffer who writes, "Nothing can be more compassionate than the severe rebuke that calls a brother back from the path of sin." (Life Together, P.107) This is the goal of mutual accountability. While we do also network together, our role at Synod is to help clarify and define, in writing, what we believe and why, and to hold one another accountable as such. 

2. Turn off the camera (enter into Executive Session) any moment we enter into a “Crucial Conversation”
Many may hate this idea. In an age of authenticity and transparency, this might feel like an argument against such values. But what I am proposing is not that. It is more consistent with the applied principles we find in scripture. Consider, for example, Acts 15. Many of the challenges of the 1st Century were tied to Soteriology (theology of salvation). This challenge was no exception to that. Luke writes:

Certain people came down from Judea to Antioch and were teaching the believers: “Unless you are circumcised, according to the custom taught by Moses, you cannot be saved…The Gentiles must be circumcised and required to keep the Law of Moses.” (Acts 15:1, 5)

You think the topic of human sexuality in the 21st Century is hard? This “issue” makes our current debate look like child’s play. Regardless of the decision they make, they’re going to offend half of the people present. This debate is split down the middle, 50/50, Jew vs Gentile, establishment vs new converts. And, at least for Jewish Christians, this was perceived as a salvation issue - "...unless you are circumcised...you cannot be saved." Can you feel the tension of the story? 

What is of particular interest to me was the fact that the apostles and elders met privately to discuss this important question. We know this is the case because the next verse says, “After much discussion, Peter got up and addressed [the crowd],” meaning the crowd was not privy to their conversation, and they had to wait until their deliberation was over to hear their decision(s). 

This is the repeated pattern throughout scripture. The apostles would meet privately to discern, grapple, deliberate, and pray. Much like a basketball team at halftime, they would close the door behind them in order to have open, frank conversations about how to approach the second half. They do this for many reasons: 

First, to ensure there is a spirit of unity and vulnerability-based trust among the team. They do it so they can speak in a loving spirit of mutual censure without the concern of airing the dirty laundry of their peers to an open world. Thinking again of the basketball team, sometimes a teammate (let's call him "Bob") needs to be able to say, ‘Jimmy, your defense in the first half was lazy. You need to cover your man!’ But to do so in an open forum is a risk to besmirch the good name of your teammate whom you are seeking to lovingly rebuke, and not to make a fool of. Healthy teams need to be able to speak critically in a way that is constructive and not counter-productive. Think about this: For Bob to make exactly the same comment about Jimmy to the media after the game would be both dehumanizing and wildly inappropriate. Context is king. This is the same reason why parents should argue in their room and not in front of the kids; why counselors meet patients in private rather than in public; why elders should have mutual censure behind closed doors. 

Additionally, executive session seeks to limit the impact of external forces, and the internal temptation to for the apostles to function as “representatives of a particular constituency” rather than “shepherds of Christ’s church.” The challenge with livestreaming Synod is that it inherently moves delegates away from functioning as a “deliberative” body (like the apostles in Acts 15 and elsewhere) and toward a “representative” body, much like parliament or congress. Each delegate takes the stand to plead their just cause on behalf of their constituents back home. In this situation the likelihood for grandstanding, posturing and pontificating increases exponentially. Frankly, the last two years of Synod (in particular) have had a lot more in common with congress than the Acts 15 model of church leadership, but I am not seeking to pin blame on delegates since much of that simply comes down to our mode of operation. Here’s the crux of the matter: Delegates are forced into an extremely difficult position where they need to have 'locker room conversation in front of the press.'

I recognize that turning off a camera will not “fix” everything, either. After all, there will still be 196 people in a room, which is an extremely difficult number to manage. If you have ever heard of the “Brooks Law” effect, it reveals how communication in large environments are more likely to fail than to succeed when having "Crucial Conversations" based on the number of lines of communication. Consider: 

- with two people, there is just 1 line of communication; 
- with three people, there are 3 lines of communication; 
- with four people, there are 6; 
- with five people, there are 10; 
- with ten people, there are 45. And so on. 

Do you know how many lines of communication there are at Synod with 196 people? A whopping 19,110 different lines of communication! So, wrapping everything together: 

1. Take the Brooks Law effect of 19,110 lines of communication, and 
2. Multiply that by our standard practice to have conversations livestreamed (thus increasing the “locker room conversation in front of the press” effect), 
3. Multiplied by an extremely difficult “Crucial Conversation” where there are strong emotions, with opposing views, and high stakes, equals…

…a recipe for an encounter that practically impossible for it NOT to end in tragedy. Here’s a way of thinking about this:

Communication systems don’t create conflict. People do. 
But bad (or overly complex) systems can facilitate our worst tendencies.

That, right there, is the human sexuality discussion at Synod. If anything, this reality should invite us to stop, take a breath, and appreciate just how difficult this really is. I hope that in some small way, it makes us far more gracious and compassionate with those with whom we disagree. I also hope it makes us more compassionate toward Synodical delegates who grapple to find exactly the right words to express their theological convictions in a way that carries the proper nuance, winsomeness, clarity, and compassion to a watching world, while also not “hedging” their deep theological convictions. Consider: These are not easy conversations to have one-on-one in a coffee shop, let alone at Synod. 

Thus, I believe we should have a stronger instinct to enter into “executive session” any moment in which we enter into a “Crucial Conversation” where there are strong opposing opinions, strong emotions, and/or high stakes.

3. Setting an extremely high bar for delegates to display the Fruit of the Spirit
If it is true that we are more likely to be tempted to dehumanize people with whom we disagree in macro environments, that means we need to be especially alert and cautious to that temptation in these settings, and to repeatedly remind ourselves of our shared motives to be a denomination that is committed to loving the Lord with all our heart, soul, mind, and strength, and loving our neighbor as ourselves.

That means when (not if) someone from your own tribe tries to apply false motives to someone with an opposing view, it is your responsibility to quickly and lovingly rebuke them, and to defend the integrity of the men and women with whom you disagree. Go back and read that again. If you land on the “historic/traditional” side, you should be a prophetic voice against any members of your tribe whose comments are either false to the truth (i.e. lack the fruit of the Spirit), or who dehumanize someone with whom you both disagree, or who try to apply ulterior motives to someone with whom they disagree, which is slander. If you land on the “affirming” side, same message.  

At the church I serve, every year the pastors and staff all make the following commitments to one another: 

1. When there is a gap between what I expect and what I experience, I will believe the best of you.
2. When other people assume (and/or talk about) the worst about you, I will come to your defense, and…
3. If what I experience begins to erode my trust, I will come directly to you about it.

Could you imagine what Synod would be like if all 196 delegates made these commitments (and lived into them) together, both at Synod, and when they return to their congregations? Could you imagine the beautifully challenging, but encouraging conversations that would take place if Synod delegates felt more like teammates in a locker room at halftime than representatives at congress, and carried that home to their congregations? It would make a HUGE difference! 

Regardless of whether any of my ideas are applied in the future, one thing we can do is to assume the best of one another, and to avoid applying false motives to people with whom we disagree. And, if a member of our tribe tries to do exactly that, you come to the defense of our neighbor. If a neighbor speaks in such a way that it is not filled with love, joy, peace, patience, goodness, kindness, gentleness, or self-control, you gently remind them: 

If you say the right thing the wrong way you’re dead wrong. 
If you apply ulterior motives to those with whom you disagree, you're dead wrong. 

While it is vital to get our theology right in a way that has legs and leads to light and light for all who listen, we also need to consider our methods. What’s the definition of insanity? “Do the same things the same way and expecting a different result.”