Peaceful Separation: Paul, Barnabas, and the CRCNA
August 1, 2023
10 comments
2331 views
Similar to how Paul and Barnabas were at odds with each other about how they should handle the situation of Mark abandoning them halfway through their first missionary journey together - and how this disagreement ultimately led to their separation (as described in Acts 15:36-41)… I believe that the churches of the CRCNA are now at odds with each other about how the denomination should handle the situation of members and office-bearers who are unable to fully affirm the synodical interpretation of the word “unchastity” in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 - and that this disagreement should lead to a separation (ideally, a peaceful one) of the CRCNA into two denominations.
For it seems to me that many churches in the CRCNA are currently emulating Barnabas, while many other churches are currently emulating Paul in the story from Acts 15:36-41.
According to the story, Barnabas wished to have Mark accompany him and Paul on their next missionary journey despite the fact that Mark wasn’t able to complete the first missionary journey they all went on together. This is because Barnabas believed that Mark deserved to be given some grace in light of the immense potential he appeared to hold for ministry work.
Likewise, there are many churches who are acting like Barnabas. These churches believe the “Marks” of the CRCNA (i.e. all members and office-bearers in the CRCNA who are unable to fully affirm the synodical interpretation of the word “unchastity” in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108) should be able to stay indefinitely in the denomination. Specifically, they believe any members who are unable to fully affirm the synodical interpretation of the word “unchastity” in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 should be able to maintain their membership, and that any office-bearers who are unable to fully affirm the synodical interpretation of the word “unchastity” in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 should be able to continue serving in the denomination - so long as they (members and office-bearers alike) respectfully act in accordance with this interpretation. This is because these churches believe that these members and office-bearers possess spiritual fruits and spiritual gifts that strongly contribute to the flourishing of their communities, and deserve to be given the opportunity to fully demonstrate their love and respect for, and commitment to the wider denominational body.
On the other hand, according to the story of Barnabas’ and Paul’s fall out, Paul was adamant in not letting Mark accompany him and Barnabas on their next missionary journey because of the fact that Mark wasn’t able to complete the first missionary journey they all went on together. This is because Paul believed that Mark’s inability to get through the whole first missionary journey with them indicated spiritual immaturity on his part, and how Mark needed several more years of spiritual discipline before he would be fit to do ministry work with either one of them.
Likewise, there are many churches who are acting like Paul. These other churches believe the “Marks” of the CRCNA (i.e. all members and office-bearers in the CRCNA who are unable to fully affirm the synodical interpretation of the word “unchastity” in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108) should not be able to stay indefinitely in the denomination. Specifically, they believe that any members who are unable to fully affirm the synodical interpretation of the word “unchastity” in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 must come to full alignment with this interpretation during a specified period of time or otherwise they can no longer continue to be members of the denomination; and that any office-bears who are unable to fully affirm the synodical interpretation of the word “unchastity” in Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 108 must similarly come to full alignment with this interpretation during a specified period of time or otherwise they can no longer continue to serve in the denomination. This is because these churches believe that only those who are able to fully align themselves with this synodical interpretation, will truly be able to continually serve and contribute to the flourishing of their respective communities and the wider denominational body, faithfully.
And of course, as most of us we know, because both Barnabas and Paul were unwilling to yield and come to a consensus about what would be best for Mark - whether it would be best to let him come with, and grow spiritually under their mentorship or whether it be best to have him stay behind to grow spiritually under the mentorship of another - they ultimately ended up parting ways, with Barnabas choosing to take Mark with him to sail for Cyprus, and Paul choosing to take Silas with him to travel through Syria and Cilicia.
But here’s the thing.
Just a chapter later, in the book of Acts it is heavily implied that God more or less used their disagreement and separation as a means to further his Kingdom purposes. When Barnabas and Paul separated, the number of missionary teams automatically doubled - and God appears to have used this outcome to strengthen the early churches and bring forth the creation of new ones (Acts 16).
Not only this, but in 1 Corinthians 9:5-6 we see Paul reference Barnabas; which not only further indicates that both continued to strongly persevere in ministry work even after their separation, but also indicates that they ultimately came to reconcile with one another in the end.
Moreover, in 2 Timothy 4:11, we see Paul reference Mark and describe him as being helpful to him in his ministry - indicating that Paul later came to the conclusion that while Mark could definitely learn a few things from him, he could certainly stand to learn a few things from Mark too, by them doing ministry work together.
And all of that is just to say…what if the CRCNA was always supposed to separate over this confessional issue? What if this is what God predestined for our denomination? What if the Holy Spirit has intentionally been guiding many of us in one direction, and guiding many of us in a different direction?
Indeed, perhaps we’ve all been - more or less - discerning the voice of the Holy Spirit correctly. It’s just that the Holy Spirit had two main messages to deliver, with one of the main messages being specifically for the churches that strongly embody Barnabas; and the other main message being specifically for the churches that strongly embody Paul. And that is why there is disagreement. God has always planned to use this disagreement to further his Kingdom purposes.
And so perhaps, it is not so much that the CRCNA is falling apart at the seams, but rather that it is experiencing the growing pains that come before it will experience any real growth. And this growth will only occur after the CRCNA separates into two different denominations that go on to live out the special missions God seems to have assigned each of them to do.
Additionally, perhaps this is why I wouldn’t be dismayed if a great number of churches - either those who strongly embody Barnabas, or those who strongly embody Paul - chose to disaffiliate to form a denomination of their own. I wouldn’t be dismayed, because I have a profound feeling that only after they have departed, will the remaining churches of CRCNA come to one day experience what they always hoped to experience between the churches that leave and go on to form a denomination of their own, and vice versa. And that is, they would experience the reconciliation of their relationship with one another.
And this is perhaps also why I feel like I have good reason to believe that a person like me - a “Mark” - will one day be able to have true fellowship with and have the honor of working closely with both types of church leaders (i.e. those who head churches who emulate Paul and those who head churches who emulate Barnabas).
Similar to how Paul later comes to more deeply appreciate Mark, and truly gets to see how useful he can be in helping him with gospel ministry; I believe that one day the churches who emulate Paul may come to more deeply appreciate the company of people who are in Mark’s position, and truly get to see how useful people in Mark’s position can be in helping them do the restorative work of the Kingdom of our LORD and Savior.
Now, to those who are wondering “ What about the few churches who wish to be fully-affirming? Where do they fit in all of this? Who are they in the narrative of Acts 15: 36-41 that the CRCNA seems to be following right down to the tee?”
Make no mistake, I haven’t forgotten them, and I dare say neither has the LORD. For it appears to me that perhaps the few churches in the CRCNA that desire to become fully- affirming could very well be occupying the role of the brothers/sisters in Christ that Paul and Barnabas leave behind in Antioch, when they depart to continue their now separate missionary journeys.
Specifically, in the story of Paul’s and Barnabas’ fall out, it mentions that some brothers/sisters in Christ went out to bid farewell and offer words of blessing to Paul and Barnabas as they were about to go their own separate ways to continue doing ministry work in other places. And it is typically assumed that after seeing Paul and Barnabas off, these brothers/sisters in Christ went back to the church they were from (i.e. the Church of Antioch, which is actually the first church where Paul and Barnabas teamed up to do ministry work together) and continued sharing the gospel with people in the local area and in other places the LORD personally called them to do ministry.
In a similar way, I feel like the few churches in the CRCNA that want to become fully-affirming churches are supposed to similarly bid both the CRCNA churches that resemble Barnabas and the CRCNA churches that resemble Paul, a gracious and loving farewell, and offer heartfelt words of blessing to them, as they go on to carry out the special missions that God appears to have assigned each of them to do. Additionally, it seems that the LORD might be calling them to go back to the church the CRCNA originally came from (i.e. the RCA), and continue sharing the gospel with people in their local communities and in other places the LORD directs them to minister in, as part of this church.
In summary, I believe what we are seeing with the CRCNA is ancient church history repeating itself. We have churches like Paul and churches like Barnabas among us, and they strongly disagree with each other about whether members and office-bearers like Mark should be allowed to accompany them in their ministry work. And it appears that this disagreement should lead to churches like Paul and churches like Barnabas to decide to part ways, resulting in two different denominations. Furthermore, just before the churches like Barnabas and the churches like Paul part ways; it seems like the churches that seem to correspond to the brothers/sisters of Antioch should go to graciously bid them farewell before they themselves take their leave to fulfill the work the LORD appears to be calling them to do as part of another denomination. For just as God did with Barnabas’ and Paul’s separation, I believe God is planning to use the separation of the CRCNA as means to further his Kingdom purposes, and is going to also ensure that the churches who are like Paul and the churches who are like Barnabas will eventually come to reconcile with one another - thus, making it possible for people like Mark to experience true fellowship with people of both types of churches. In other words, the Holy Spirit has been on the move, it's just the Holy Spirit hasn’t been moving in the ways we expected. Indeed, God seems to have prepared a path forward for us, but it doesn’t look like the path many of us had in mind.
Comments
The symmetry between the Paul and Barnabas story and todays CRC challenges is attractive. However the conclusion that after a split denominations are stronger is not based on current or past history. A quick google search shows that fractured churches like fractured bones are weaker than before the fracture. An empirical study on the results of denominational splits needs to accompany this conclusion.
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.
Elaine,
Your paragraph,
“And so perhaps, it is not so much that the CRCNA is falling apart at the seams, but rather that it is experiencing the growing pains that come before it will experience any real growth. And this growth will only occur after the CRCNA separates into two different denominations that go on to live out the special missions God seems to have assigned each of them to do. ”
I interpreted real growth with stronger.
Gary
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.
Yes, there is the expectation that Elders/Officebearers should not be novices, and so with the vows they make, there is certainly the expectation for them to fully and heartily both believe and defend our doctrines. But, where have you seen this being applied to members in our churches? The Gravamen discussion that Synod ran out of time on, addressed officebearers only, not the general membership of the church?
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):
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?
The form for Profession of Faith used in many churches makes reference to agreement with the confessions. Persons who have legitimate concerns about the decision to give one interpretation of unchastity confessional status will not be able to make profession of faith in good conscience. Profession of faith is an important entry to many elements of membership.
If the CRC showed greater respect for conscientious decision-making and the moral agency of its members - a very Reformed teaching - we would be stronger and have a more impactful public witness, as well as avoiding the waste of potential and harm caused by feeding internal conflicts.
While I appreciate naming this option for discussion, it seems to me that are at least three assumptions in this analysis that warrant more detailed attention:
1. The assumption of equivalency between the account of Paul and Barnabas and the current conflict within the CRC. The first was primarily a conflict about how to do missions in the context of expecting Christ's return quickly; that is very different in nature and context than the second one. It seems to me a closer parallel is the early church struggle over circumcision as a requirement. How that one was resolved provides important lessons for the current conflict - it leads in a different direction.
2. The assumption that both groups will be stronger elevates a few elements of church life and totally ignores other important elements of mission and witness. It also ignores the inconsistency of saying that this particular issue is essential for salvation and blessing those who leave because of a carefully discerned, conscientious decision that is a responsible exercise of their calling before God and their equal moral agency. One benefit of discussing a peaceful split is the tacit recognition that this particular matter is not central to salvation - once one recognizes that, there is not a very good reason to declare it has confessional status.
3. The assumption of minimum damage from a friendly split needs more careful analysis. In my view, Synod 2023 was poorly served by lack of accurate information about the impacts of the decisions it was making. We are still operating without analysis that could be done about the impacts of various scenarios. Well-informed decision-making is one of the basics of a Reformed approach to life; I have read many grossly inaccurate statements that are used to justify decisions that impact others without any consideration of the impacts for those others. That seems to me to violate a core teaching as important as any interpretation of unchastity. We should not continue acting on faulty assumptions.
Kathy Vandergrift
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.
Though I appreciate the spirit of Elaine's well-written article, it seems to be missing much of the issue of what's at stake in the Synodical decisions. The article makes it sound like this is just an issue of 2 Christians who cannot get along. But it would have been more truthful of you might had pictured Paul as the straight believer and Barnabas the practicing homosexual leader and then see how you can get the two to part company but eventually reconcile. Because the issue that is dividing the CRC deals more with calling evil good and good evil than a personality difference on opinions. You should write an article on I Corinthians 6:9 in which the apostle Paul says, "Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters or adulterers nor male prostitutes nor homosexual offenders..." and then make the case how Barnabas is a much more loving believer who has learned to accept people whose life-style Paul, under the inspiration of the Holy Spirit, calls sinful. The issue is calling evil good or making a sinful lifestyle no longer a sin in God's eyes.
Let's Discuss
We love your comments! Thank you for helping us uphold the Community Guidelines to make this an encouraging and respectful community for everyone.