"Humble us to submit our own opinions to the authority of Your Word and listen to You reverently and intently."
Amen.
The Synod process has some downsides and, like any alternative option, is made up entirely of sinful people. But it's the God-ordained method of church organization and deliberation.
God will use our imperfect attempts as He directs our church.
I'm saddened to disagree with so many denominational leaders.
While I agree that some doctrinal concepts are so foundational to our faith that to deny them is to hold to a different religion and some other concepts are merely error and sinful, I do not agree that we cannot or should not stand firm when God's Word speaks clearly to an issue.
Instead, we should indeed hold to God's Word with the faithfulness of de Bres! The truth is important, even when it's not about the "biggest issues". "Having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another" (Eph. 4:25). We aren't called to an individualism that expects our Christian brothers and sisters to deal with their own sins in their own way, but to encourage each other and as Jesus commands "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him" and also "exhort one another every day, as long as it is called 'today,' that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin" (Heb. 3:13).
We are called as a communal body to encourage each other to godliness and good works. Even when those sins aren't concerning "salvation issues".
Although 1 Corinthians 6:10 might create a problem for this entire argument.
The failure of churches to hold Christians accountable for their sins of pornography usage is a problem for our churches. Yes, it's difficult because people work hard to hide their pornography use. No one walks around with a "Pornography Pride" flag. Yet it's prevalence is so profound that our denomination would do well to begin a monumental campaign, working together as churches to emphasize repentance or discipline, and providing support as people work to kill that sin in their life!
But I don't think that a failure to adequately eradicate one sin should give us permission to allow space for another sin.
Nick, I'm afraid that if you wish Synod to make no decision, you asking Synod 2022 to deny the explicit calling that previous synods, such as Synod 2016, have specifically asked it to do. And you'd also be asking it to not do the very thing which synods were created for and have always done.
It is to the church's shame that it took 300 years to "reach consensus" on the Trinity, but we might give them some slack because 1. the Trinity is so completely supernatural, unexpected, and relatively novel to these Jewish and gentile converts... plus 2. the New Testament, while completely written, is being passed around as individual parchments. With finality of Holy Canon comes the clarity needed for the Holy Trinity.
And then think about how it ended... the "concensus" declared all those with diverse views as HERETICS and thus not-saved and not-Christian!
And you're conveniently forgetting Synod 50. In the book of Acts, Synod 50 in Jerusalem placed a "light" burden on churches, which did not include much... but it DID declare that churches cannot allow for sexual immorality!
The Trinity is complex. The Bible's teaching on marriage, sex, and non-heterosexual behavior has been clear for the past 2000(+) years! It actually hurts your argument to bring up contested discussions in Christianity, because this has never been one of them until cultural pressure began making Christians feel uncomfortable. Non-heterosexual behavior and lifelong same-sex unions have existed long before Christianity began.
We must not disunite from the global church of all ages! It was the African churches which stood up against the LGBT affirmation in the United Methodist Church! Minority churches look down on the Scriptural infidelity of the CRCNA already as it is!
I digress...
The purpose of Synods is to deliberate and make decisions. We've had 2000 years of deliberation (including over 50 years of deliberation in the CRC alone). Synod 2022 should affirm the decision of Synod 50! The position of the HSR already has confessional status because it already has Biblical status.
PS. It is disingenuous and wrong to claim that the Bible ever promoted chattel slavery as anything other than sin. In the Torah already, the punishment for kidnapping was death. The year of Jubiliee released the "slaves" (bondservants) and granted freedom. Except for some greedy colonizers, the church through all ages and places has rid the world of slavery.
Besides... even then, what is the point you're making? Do you wish that the slavery discussions would have lasted LONGER? When something is a sin, it is then a sin to prolong discussions which allow the sin to continue!
I'm curious if you think that Jesus was "unconsciously racist" as a part of the Jewish social class and the systemic treatment and subjugation of the Samaritan social class?
Because I have concerns about the implications that such a view of systemic racism would turn Jesus into a sinner. Would you have any concerns in this regard?
La Teoría Crítica de la Raza y el racismo sistémico correspondiente, si se aplica consistentemente, convertirían al mismo Jesús en un pecador y todos estaríamos perdidos en nuestro pecado. La Biblia nos enseña sobre la responsabilidad individual y el pecado del odio. Como cristianos, no podemos usar CRT.
We're talking about CRT here, which claims that people of the privileged social order can be inherently racist even while actively attempting to be anti-racist. So even if Jesus' teachings were "anti-racist", he himself was still a member of the privileged (and prejudicial) Jewish social order, and thus inherently racist.
Now, I'm going to hope that you consider being racist as something sinful...
Similarly, if the Syrophoenecian woman is correcting Jesus's sinful words of prejudice, that implies Jesus sinned in what he said.
Obviously, if Jesus Christ sinned, we are all damned to eternal destruction, because we have no savior.
"All previous synodical actions on the matter are explicitly and tellingly characterized as "pastoral advice.""
Exactly the problem, then?
My hope is that somebody (from the study committee who already has their sources?) will rise to meet your challenge and find the evidence that you seek to show that a previous synod has claimed decisively that 1. marriage is between one man and one woman, and that 2. homosexual behavior is sinful.
Although it seems to me that it's clear that both of those statements have been made by the CRC already (even though they've clearly been made by the Bible already)... but just not up to an "official standard" of what makes something confessional?
Just trying to understand.
I appreciate and thank you for having this conversation now, though, so that we all know what official motions need to be made or don't need to be made at Synod 2021.
"If Synod 2021 passes the recommendation that the church's teaching on sexuality already has confessional status - that statement in itself recognizes this teaching not in the pastoral advice category, but in the confessional category."
Hence why Henry has to explicitly state that (for some reason) we CANNOT use Ursinus's definition of "unchastity", even though he wrote the Heidelberg Catechism.
Because, as the report states...
"By the word “unchastity” the catechism intends to encompass all sexual immorality, including homosexual activity. The Reformed Church in America acknowledged this in 2017, affirming that in the catechism “God condemns ‘all unchastity,’ which includes same-sex sexual activity.”244. Ursinus, one of the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism, confirms this in his commentary on Q&A 108."
But I, like you, believe that original intentions and definitions are extremely important to a proper reading of a written confession! It is instead a change from the original meaning of "unchastity" that would need to be explicitly stated by a previous Synod. Otherwise the original intention should be assumed as the continued, unchanged definition.
From the Executive Summary of the Human Sexuality Report:
"We also conclude that this status is warranted because these sins threaten a person’s salvation. The Scriptures call the church to warn people to flee sexual immorality for the sake of their souls and to encourage them with God’s presence and power to equip them for holy living. A church that fails to call people to repentance and offer them the hope of God’s loving deliverance is acting like a false church. In coming to this conclusion, we observe that we stand with the majority church worldwide, including the Roman Catholic Church, all branches of Orthodoxy, the non-Western global church, and a majority of active Protestants in North America and Europe. Indeed, the global church finds the Western church’s challenges to biblical teaching on human sexuality incomprehensible and offensive. To refuse to uphold Christian teaching on sexual immorality would signal that the Christian Reformed Church in North America is deviating not only from Scripture but from the shared confession of the historic and worldwide church."
I agree with them. It's not missing the point at all.
Posted in: Re-envision Synod Through the Lens of Prayer
"Humble us to submit our own opinions to the authority of Your Word and listen to You reverently and intently."
Amen.
The Synod process has some downsides and, like any alternative option, is made up entirely of sinful people. But it's the God-ordained method of church organization and deliberation.
God will use our imperfect attempts as He directs our church.
Thank you for your prayer.
Posted in: Talking About Human Sexuality With Love
I'm saddened to disagree with so many denominational leaders.
While I agree that some doctrinal concepts are so foundational to our faith that to deny them is to hold to a different religion and some other concepts are merely error and sinful, I do not agree that we cannot or should not stand firm when God's Word speaks clearly to an issue.
Instead, we should indeed hold to God's Word with the faithfulness of de Bres! The truth is important, even when it's not about the "biggest issues". "Having put away falsehood, let each one of you speak the truth with his neighbor, for we are members one of another" (Eph. 4:25). We aren't called to an individualism that expects our Christian brothers and sisters to deal with their own sins in their own way, but to encourage each other and as Jesus commands "If your brother sins, rebuke him, and if he repents, forgive him" and also "exhort one another every day, as long as it is called 'today,' that none of you may be hardened by the deceitfulness of sin" (Heb. 3:13).
We are called as a communal body to encourage each other to godliness and good works. Even when those sins aren't concerning "salvation issues".
Although 1 Corinthians 6:10 might create a problem for this entire argument.
Posted in: Talking About Human Sexuality With Love
I also notice the false equivalency that 1. Human Sexuality is complex and messy. 2. Therefore the Bible's teaching on Sexuality is complex and messy.
But the Bible's teaching is actually simple, clear, and consistent from beginning to end.
Posted in: Talking About Human Sexuality With Love
The failure of churches to hold Christians accountable for their sins of pornography usage is a problem for our churches. Yes, it's difficult because people work hard to hide their pornography use. No one walks around with a "Pornography Pride" flag. Yet it's prevalence is so profound that our denomination would do well to begin a monumental campaign, working together as churches to emphasize repentance or discipline, and providing support as people work to kill that sin in their life!
But I don't think that a failure to adequately eradicate one sin should give us permission to allow space for another sin.
Posted in: Talking About Human Sexuality With Love
Nick, I'm afraid that if you wish Synod to make no decision, you asking Synod 2022 to deny the explicit calling that previous synods, such as Synod 2016, have specifically asked it to do. And you'd also be asking it to not do the very thing which synods were created for and have always done.
It is to the church's shame that it took 300 years to "reach consensus" on the Trinity, but we might give them some slack because 1. the Trinity is so completely supernatural, unexpected, and relatively novel to these Jewish and gentile converts... plus 2. the New Testament, while completely written, is being passed around as individual parchments. With finality of Holy Canon comes the clarity needed for the Holy Trinity.
And then think about how it ended... the "concensus" declared all those with diverse views as HERETICS and thus not-saved and not-Christian!
And you're conveniently forgetting Synod 50. In the book of Acts, Synod 50 in Jerusalem placed a "light" burden on churches, which did not include much... but it DID declare that churches cannot allow for sexual immorality!
The Trinity is complex. The Bible's teaching on marriage, sex, and non-heterosexual behavior has been clear for the past 2000(+) years! It actually hurts your argument to bring up contested discussions in Christianity, because this has never been one of them until cultural pressure began making Christians feel uncomfortable. Non-heterosexual behavior and lifelong same-sex unions have existed long before Christianity began.
We must not disunite from the global church of all ages! It was the African churches which stood up against the LGBT affirmation in the United Methodist Church! Minority churches look down on the Scriptural infidelity of the CRCNA already as it is!
I digress...
The purpose of Synods is to deliberate and make decisions. We've had 2000 years of deliberation (including over 50 years of deliberation in the CRC alone). Synod 2022 should affirm the decision of Synod 50! The position of the HSR already has confessional status because it already has Biblical status.
PS. It is disingenuous and wrong to claim that the Bible ever promoted chattel slavery as anything other than sin. In the Torah already, the punishment for kidnapping was death. The year of Jubiliee released the "slaves" (bondservants) and granted freedom. Except for some greedy colonizers, the church through all ages and places has rid the world of slavery.
Besides... even then, what is the point you're making? Do you wish that the slavery discussions would have lasted LONGER? When something is a sin, it is then a sin to prolong discussions which allow the sin to continue!
Posted in: Fear, Flukes & Critical Race Theory
Hi MJill H,
I'm curious if you think that Jesus was "unconsciously racist" as a part of the Jewish social class and the systemic treatment and subjugation of the Samaritan social class?
Because I have concerns about the implications that such a view of systemic racism would turn Jesus into a sinner. Would you have any concerns in this regard?
Thanks
-Trevor
Posted in: Miedos, Flukes y Teoría Crítica de la Raza
La Teoría Crítica de la Raza y el racismo sistémico correspondiente, si se aplica consistentemente, convertirían al mismo Jesús en un pecador y todos estaríamos perdidos en nuestro pecado.
La Biblia nos enseña sobre la responsabilidad individual y el pecado del odio. Como cristianos, no podemos usar CRT.
Posted in: Fear, Flukes & Critical Race Theory
Jonathan,
We're talking about CRT here, which claims that people of the privileged social order can be inherently racist even while actively attempting to be anti-racist. So even if Jesus' teachings were "anti-racist", he himself was still a member of the privileged (and prejudicial) Jewish social order, and thus inherently racist.
Now, I'm going to hope that you consider being racist as something sinful...
Similarly, if the Syrophoenecian woman is correcting Jesus's sinful words of prejudice, that implies Jesus sinned in what he said.
Obviously, if Jesus Christ sinned, we are all damned to eternal destruction, because we have no savior.
All is lost.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
"All previous synodical actions on the matter are explicitly and tellingly characterized as "pastoral advice.""
Exactly the problem, then?
My hope is that somebody (from the study committee who already has their sources?) will rise to meet your challenge and find the evidence that you seek to show that a previous synod has claimed decisively that 1. marriage is between one man and one woman, and that 2. homosexual behavior is sinful.
Although it seems to me that it's clear that both of those statements have been made by the CRC already (even though they've clearly been made by the Bible already)... but just not up to an "official standard" of what makes something confessional?
Just trying to understand.
I appreciate and thank you for having this conversation now, though, so that we all know what official motions need to be made or don't need to be made at Synod 2021.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
"If Synod 2021 passes the recommendation that the church's teaching on sexuality already has confessional status - that statement in itself recognizes this teaching not in the pastoral advice category, but in the confessional category."
Beautiful.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
Hence why Henry has to explicitly state that (for some reason) we CANNOT use Ursinus's definition of "unchastity", even though he wrote the Heidelberg Catechism.
Because, as the report states...
"By the word “unchastity” the catechism intends to encompass all sexual immorality, including homosexual activity. The Reformed Church in America acknowledged this in 2017, affirming that in the catechism “God condemns ‘all unchastity,’ which includes same-sex sexual activity.”244. Ursinus, one of the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism, confirms this in his commentary on Q&A 108."
But I, like you, believe that original intentions and definitions are extremely important to a proper reading of a written confession! It is instead a change from the original meaning of "unchastity" that would need to be explicitly stated by a previous Synod. Otherwise the original intention should be assumed as the continued, unchanged definition.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
From the Executive Summary of the Human Sexuality Report:
"We also conclude that this status is warranted because these sins threaten a person’s salvation. The Scriptures call the church to warn people to flee sexual immorality for the sake of their souls and to encourage them with God’s presence and power to equip them for holy living. A church that fails to call people to repentance and offer them the hope of God’s loving deliverance is acting like a false church. In coming to this conclusion, we observe that we stand with the majority church worldwide, including the Roman Catholic Church, all branches of Orthodoxy, the non-Western global church, and a majority of active Protestants in North America and Europe. Indeed, the global church finds the Western church’s challenges to biblical teaching on human sexuality incomprehensible and offensive. To refuse to uphold Christian teaching on sexual immorality would signal that the Christian Reformed Church in North America is deviating not only from Scripture but from the shared confession of the historic and worldwide church."
I agree with them. It's not missing the point at all.