Thank you for this updated guidance. The church where I am a member is currently in the midst of discerning potential disaffiliation. As part of that discernment process, church visitors from our classis came to visit yesterday. I asked to meet with them, and they were able and willing to accommodate that request. In preparation for that meeting, I sent a very real scenario about which I was seeking clarity.
The heart of the scenario is whether an officebearer can humbly submit to the CRCNA's confessional theology, even if they have a settled conviction contrary to a doctrine contained in the confessions.
Here's the scenario: imagine an elderly Christian who has served multiple terms already as an elder in our local CRCNA. He has a settled conviction that the Bible does not teach the doctrine of infant baptism. But in all his terms as elder, he has always humbly submitted that our local church holds to the doctrine that affirms infant baptism. He has never taught against it, and has never tried to push for a revision of this confessional conclusion. From my perspective, he has served for literally decades already as a faithful officebearer in our local church. He has never 'made an issue' of his difference. He has never tried to persuade others to align with him. Rather, we as a church felt that it was fine for him to hold office because he was willing to humbly submit to not teach against the church's teaching, even while holding a settled conviction that differed. It is true that he did not 'live in conformity' with the CRC's doctrine of infant baptism as he did not have his children baptized as infants (instead, for that decision, he followed his settled conviction).
I brought this scenario to the church visitors.
My impression (and my impression may be wrong) is that the church visitors tried to make room for humble submission, even using words like you use here ("affirm the confessions") with less emphasis on the "without reservation" phrase. My sense is that they felt such a decision is not sufficiently clarified in CRCNA's Church Order (various pastors/councils may have different 'takes' on such a question) -- and so the situation could be left up to the local church as to whether or not this person could sign the Covenant for Officebearers and serve as an officebearer in the CRCNA.
Question for OGS: What do you think?
My impression (and again, my impression may be wrong) is that your Guidance here would suggest that there is no room for this long-time officebearer to continue as an officebearer in the CRCNA. As I read your guidance, all officebearers should have their children baptized as infants (part of "living in conformity" with the confessions). And that recent synodical decisions have clarified that there is no longer room for humble submission to the churches teaching while still holding a 'settled conviction' contrary to that teaching.
Hello John! Thanks for this. Fun, eh? I have some professor friends who LOVE playing with ChatGPT as a pedagogical tool.
A couple initial comments/questions:
Pretty much all of ChatGPT's summary seems like it would also have been a summary of the CRCNA's approach to conscription for the 150+ years pre-2022. So what HAS changed? Is there a way for ChatGPT (or the OGS) to point out the change made by all the recent amendments? To many, the change feels substantive; ChatGPT may not be catching that reality.
ChatGPT says that the "authorship of Hebrews" is non-adjudicated. It also says that my question about baptism is non-adjudicated. If that is true, that raises two questions.
(1) Tell me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that OGS wants to avoid speaking about the 'close, but out of bounds' settled convictions (they do not want to articulate, "Sadly, given recent decisions, it is now clear that this person would not be allowed in office") but this article demonstrates that they are willing to speak about the 'close, but acceptable' settled convictions (where OGS is willing to say, "Even with this settled conviction, this person would be allowed in office"). Why not speak about both (to be honest about what maybe has changed) or avoid speaking about either (to really focus on the local council discernment)?
(2) What if a local council actually wants to locally adjudicate the authorship of Hebrews, and wants to decide that such a settled conviction DOES keep a person out of office? Has the OGS -- by writing this up in this way -- subtly removed that local authority?
Thank you, Rev. Patrick Anthony, for carefully reading my question and for sharing the intention of the two committees you were on in Synod 2023 and Synod 2024. It is helpful to see why you did what you did. It was also helpful to read, in tandem, the comments below of Rev. Joel Vande Werken. If "clarity is kindness," I think your comments read together provide additional helpful clarity to this article. Much appreciated.
Thank you, Joel, for the additional synodical references. As you of all people know, there is a LOT to read in the history of synodical decisions, and it is helpful to have a response from someone like you who is called to steward those decisions for the wider body. As I said to Rev. Patrick Anthony above, if "clarity is kindness," I think your comments here read together with Rev. Anthony's provide additional helpful clarity to this article. I imagine it will prove helpful as our church asks "Do we want to remain in the CRCNA?" -- a very painful question to even ask, but better to be asked with as much clarity as possible around the consequences of a "yes" response. Much appreciated.
At about the same time I wrote responses to Revs. Anthony and Vande Werken this morning, Shiao Chong (former Editor-in-Chief of The Banner, who resigned in protest after changes to The Banner's mandate by Synod 2025) posted on Facebook. He shared his article published this morning online via the Christian Courier (CC) -- also in their October print addition. His situation seems like one additional piece of information / clarity around recent decisions of CRCNA synods. He wrote this on FB, and then linked the CC article:
No Room for Not Sure -- article for Christian Courier. In this article, I described how the "middle ground" in my denomination, the Christian Reformed Church in North America, has shrunk, leaving no room for even people who are "not sure" about the same-sex marriage debate.
Darren, thanks for this good work. There has been some strong critique of this work in other Facebook places -- here's what I've written there in reply, for what it's worth.
Sisters and Brothers in Jesus, I myself am glad that such a document as this is shared in Canada. It calls for human solidarity, it invites words and acts of gratitude, and it calls us to live out of our living hope. As such, I am glad it is signed on to by the CRC-Canada. I think it resonates with my hope as a CRC person in Canada to 'stand together' in the midst of this current crisis. And by 'standing together', I do not mean believing the same thing; I mean working together for the common good and finding courage to do so in the acts of loving kindness we experience from and share with our neighbours.
I sense that one of the things that creates the concerns noted here is that this document is signed by people from other religious communities, and that this multiple-religious signing means that we have to hold to the 'lowest common denominator' of meaning. I myself do not think that, just because a communal document is signed by various people, that signing it must mean that I understand ‘how it means’ in the exact same way as everyone else who signs it. I do not need to think that what ‘God’ and ‘Creator’ means to me must mean the same thing as ‘God’ and ‘Creator’ (or even ‘hope’, ‘gratitude,’ etc) means to the other signer(s).
With that in mind, I read the document (and would sign it) as a Christian. And it seems to me that this document, if read as a Christian, is able to be read as fitting orthodox Christian theology (maybe it'd be good to hear quotes from it that I missed - that are clearly not fitting with being a Christian). If it was written ONLY by Christians, for Christians, then I imagine it would have an even more Christian-specific posture/language/orientation (surely it would mention Jesus as the source of our hope, etc).
But it is not written as a specifically Christian document – and that’s where I hear that many on this page are finding it complicated/problematic. I would note that, while it does not add the Christian-specific posture (Jesus is not mentioned), it also does not say things like “We all believe in the same God; we all believe the same things about the Creator and the creation.”
My own work as a Christian chaplain in a multi-faith setting, working alongside of chaplains from 10 other global religions, means that I navigate the challenges presented in this document often. How can we together write something together, that we hold commonly true? We struggled with this when the University asked us to add in a document that we ‘celebrate all diversity.’ Some, including me, struggled with that phrase. All diversity? Do we celebrate that people believe different things about God (or don't believe in God at all?), celebrate that religious diversity? Do we honestly celebrate all diversity? I don’t. So we asked to shift the document to say ‘we respect diversity.’ But even that could be pulled apart and argued with. These are complicated matters, and I think this document demonstrates a good way forward – even if not perfect.
Good work like this seems to stand the test of time. Here I am, 4 years later, finding this helpful and good again. Thanks again, Mark (and any others that helped assemble this piece). It is good to be a part of this denominational community, to be enveloped in the care and wisdom gathered, and to be a part of the work of sharing the wisdom in helpful ways to my local community.
Oh Dee! Remember the first time we met at synod? I had heard so many good things about you from my dad, Rev. Will Verhoef, who enjoyed you at synods and through work as a synodical deputee and classical clerk. Forget hollywood movie stars or famous theologians. Dee Recker was FAMOUS in our house! ;-) And then I FINALLY got to meet you at Synod 2013. All the "Dee" stories were brought to life - your kindness, your care for our community, your excellent work, your smile, and just enough playfulness to feel a bit like family. Thanks for using those God-given gifts for so many years in the CRCNA. We are better because you did -- to God be the glory! Thanks Dee - and so much love to you!
I find the 'global church' and 'history of tradition' conversation to need to be more nuanced. I find a few complicating factors quickly rise to the surface upon my first-blush consideration.
One of those complications is that many of us have experienced a dissonance regarding our traditional theological views BECAUSE we have encountered faithful same-sex married Christian couples who have been together for over a significant time and seem to be flourishing on all fronts. NOTE: this doesn't mean we have abandoned Scripture; rather the dissonance has driven us to return to Scripture to re-examine our traditional perspective with renewed attention (one example of the helpfulness of re-examining traditional conclusions more thoroughly is seen in the work of the 1973 report regarding 'Sodom and Gomorrah' and 'sodomy').
Here's the complication - same-sex marriage isn't legal in sooooooo many countries - so how can this dissonance be experienced, and without the dissonance, one must at least ask if there is a curiosity to re-examine a traditional perspective and its biblical hermeneutics? Here is a PEW article that gives a glimpse (https://www.pewresearch.org/.../global-snapshot-same-sex.../) - but also note that in MOST of these countries with same-sex marriage, the legalization is recent (so again, how much dissonance will Christians be experiencing)?
So one possible conclusion would be that the history of tradition AND the global church are in (general, not universal) agreement because, for most of human history and in most places today globally, same sex marriage is simply not legal.
Eric - thanks for the reply. It is precisely your concern around the need to 'discern' flourishing that caused me to put in the word 'seem.' I do not know the inner life and know I am not the final judge of these things. On the other hand, it seems that in many stories of Scripture, we are drawn in to places where faith is flourishing in places where the community was not expecting it - so I also would not want to assume that 'faith could never flourish there' and have that assumption close off the community from discerning what may be the work of the Spirit.
Andrew - I think if the CRCNA is going to engage in dialogue around this very controversial topic, it will be helpful for us to be careful with our words. In marriage counselling, in controversial conversations at my work, and also notably in the facilitation training for the "Challenging Conversations Toolkit" - in all those places, it seems helpful to speak from the position of 'I' and not speak in generalizations or accusatory ways about others.
In your reply to me, you say: "As I see it Paul, your experience...drives you to reintepret (revise) Scripture, placing the authority of human experience at the same level (or higher than) Biblical authority." That single statement seems to be accusing me of both revising Scripture and elevating human experience at least parallel to, but perhaps higher than Scripture. As a minister in the CRCNA and a steward of God's Word, I consider these serious statements, indeed serious accusations. I am sure I have made mistakes along the way in how I've interpreted Scripture - indeed, I got a really poor grade on a sermon at Calvin Seminary that exposed to me what biases I brought to that text. And I believe that 'we are in this together' - so I was thankful when Dr. Greidanus and Rev. Roeda served me well by gently and honestly 'calling me into a conversation' about how I had mis-handled God's Word. I invite you to do the same.
But here, it seems that you are making accusations that, as far as I can tell, have no basis in my post itself. My sense is that I was clear that experience can be a cause to return to Scripture to 're-examine it with renewed attention.' I imagine, if you listen to your own life, you can find experiences of your own that have driven you back to Scripture, to re-examine with renewed attention. For me, something as basic as sensing a call to be a minister was one of those experiences - it called me to re-examine Scripture with renewed attention.
I also get concerned about the way you put side-by-side the words reintepret and revise. Twice you wrote 'reinterpret (revise) Scripture.' I think we are called to question our interpretations of Scripture, and re-evaluate them. I appreciated that the 1973 report 42 on Homosexuality did this fairly clearly around the Sodom and Gomorrah story; it challenged what in many places of Christianity was the 'traditional' interpretation of that story, and wondered if the story was not so much directly about homosexual acts (dubbed 'sodomy' in history) and more widely about sexual violence. So...yes, I believe we are called to continually return to Scripture and evaluate our human interpretations of this revelation of God. But putting the word 'revise' as a parallel to 'reinterpret' seems to me to be a problem, especially when the direct object of the verb is Scripture. I have not seen people 'revise Scripture' in this conversation. All those I have read (DeYoung, Sprinkle, Webb, Hays, Vines, Gushee, Achtemeier, etc) have been exceptionally clear that they are working with Scripture as we have received it. None of them have 'revised Scripture' (at least in how I understand that word to mean: alter, amend, modify; there may be a more 'British' use that I think I encountered in Harry Potter that comes closer to re-examine or study carefully). But in our CRCNA climate, it feels to me that saying people are 'revising Scripture' is most commonly heard as 'altering Scripture.' I haven't seen this by any listed above, though some have clearly 'reinterpreted Scripture.' I simply do not think that using those words as synonyms in this particular situation is helpful (maybe in Britain, if I'm interpreting Harry Potter correctly).
And I think the connecting or paralleling of the two words in our context could lead us to something that concerns me: we could forget that our interpretations are fallible. To me, this is one of the concerns in the 'science' area of the Human Sexuality Report. It rightly notes that science is a fallible tool that we use to 'interpret' God's revelation in creation. Creation is the revelation - but our interpretations may be wrong. But I wish a parallel statement was made about 'hermeneutics and exegesis.' I wish the report would have followed up by noting that our hermeneutics and exegesis are fallible tools that we use to interpret God's revelation in Scripture. Scripture is the revelation - but our interpretations may be wrong. To use the image from the report, we may sometimes need to check the prescription of our glasses - we may not be seeing as clearly as we think.
Henry, I am thankful that you entered into this conversation. Indeed, the report's declaration that "the church's teaching on premarital sex, extramarital sex, adultery, polyamory, pornography, and homosexual sex already has confessional status" (followed by a parallel recommendation for Synod to adopt) was surprising to me. I posted this article the network on October 20, 2020, before the report came out: https://network.crcna.org/crcna-and-synod/same-sex-marriage-resources-and-church-order-history-crcna. At the very end of that linked resource, I had written: The fact that the committee was asked to reflect on and evaluate whether future synods should consider the confessional status of this matter demonstrates that it currently is not in that category. It has been a decision of pastoral advice to the churches since 1973. And with you, I focus that whole resource on same-sex marriage (though of course this current report's declaration and following recommendation include much more than only homosexual sex.
But this report also seems to ask quite clear questions that it does not answer about what would happen if Synod agrees with that declaration/recommendation or if Synod decides itself to make the report's articulation on homosexual sex a confessional-status position.
Here is the pertinent paragraph from page 145 of the report:
If a teaching is declared to have confessional status, questions arise about what that means for those who sign the Covenant for Officebearers (CFO) in the CRCNA. Will those who have already signed it need to accept this new item as having confessional status? What happens if they don’t? Will those who subsequently sign the CFO need to accept this new item?
This paragraph has already been reference on the CRC Pastors Facebook page, and councils have already asked, "What could this mean? Would we (elders, deacons, and pastors) need to all affirm that we agree with this report's conclusions, or leave office?"
It is my sense that since Synod 1973, the CRC has had a clear position (that's the language from their mandate - 'position') - but that statements of pastoral advice are what constitute that position. As you've written in your Commentary on the Church Order (2010 edition, pp 168-169), "[Synod] expected a “healthy respect” for its decisions, not creedal attachment. Officebearers would not be subject to dismissal from office based on unorthodox views, but only on disrespect for what the synod decided."
So my sense is that, for 48 years, the CRC has had space for respectful disagreement about homosexual sex (and by extension, same-sex marriage). Any office-bearer could disagree with the CRCNA's position, and still respect it. If the recommendations of this report are accepted, it seems to me that the CRCNA has made a significant change - that space for respectful disagreement shrinks considerably. The question being asked is: how small does it become?
The report itself mentions some potential room: "Even if a teaching has confessional status, that does not mean there is no room for disagreement within the bounds of that teaching. In addition, the church sometimes allows for pastoral accommodations. For example, our confessions say that the children of believers should be baptized. Yet some congregations are willing to allow members not to baptize their children." (145)
So again, Henry (and others who wish to enter in), how would you articulate how that 'space for respectful disagreement' will change? How much does it shrink? How would you articulate the space left, and who can be there? While Synod is able to make this decision, is there a history of other decisions where Synod 'changes the rules' significantly after 48 years? I would imagine for some, a similar 'threat to belonging' was sense if the Belhar was added to the CfO (which it was not because of that concern, I believe). If this goes through, I imagine one response may be that some office-bearers will be dusting off the part of the Church Order around gravamans. Another response is that some churches may simply not worry about any new declaration of Synod. I also imagine a third response: if the CRC's position on homosexual sex is raised to a confessional-status agreement, it provides leverage to push out those who for 48 years felt like they were able to belong even though they 'respectfully disagreed.' What's your sense of all this possibility?
It is my understanding that Dr. DeMoor is saying, "The discernment of how to flesh out these larger category words (like 'unchastity'), considering what they mean in the particular temporal and geographical context, is the very work of the local church. The confessions were written with these wide words; and the history of the church is that it does the work, usually at the local level, of applying these wide words."
I would suggest that it is generally unwise to ask Synod to maintain lists of sins that fall under each large-category word: "belittle, hate, insult" (HC 105), "theft and robbery,...scheming and swindling,...greed" (HC 110), "do what I can to guard and advance my neighbor's good name" (HC 112). There are likely all sorts of ways that we would agree, as a denomination of local churches, on what constitutes some of those pieces. But we have not gone as far to make those clarifications 'binding.' For instance, we could deliberate and decide denominationally around the question, "Is charging interest on a loan "greed"? How much interest is too much? When does it become 'usury'?" What if we discovered that Ursinus, in his commentary on the Catechism, had written that 3% interest is the maximum; anything more is greed? Would Ursinus's perspective be 'confessional' for the CRC today? Absolutely not.
I think the point Dr. De Moor is making is that the CRCNA has not, at a denominational/Synodical level ever made the clear decision that 'homosexual sex' is part of the CRCNA's confessional standards as sinful. He has acknowledged that Ursinus thinks it is sinful. Also, that Ursinus considers homosexual set to be in the category of 'unchastity'. Dr. DeMoor has clearly said that the CRCNA has said it is sinful. What the CRCNA has NOT said is that the belief that 'homosexual sex is sinful' needs to be held at the confessional level of agreement/adherence. And he is asking us to do the work to disprove him - so look at the history. Has the CRCNA ever made a statement that we (the CRCNA) decided that 'homosexual sex is sinful' is a statement held to the highest level of denominational agreement (confession/creedal agreement)? The answer, at least as I read every response in this chain, is "No, we cannot point to that place in CRCNA history." We have said, "Homosexual sex is a sin", and that is our CRCNA's 'position', but we have not raised that position to the level of 'confessional/creedal agreement.' Instead, it has been at the agreement level called "pastoral advice."
He has also said that Synod 2021 may change that. Synod's have the freedom to do so. But he disagrees with the Human Sexuality reports conclusion that 'it is already confessional.' That's the conversation as I am reading it.
Posted in: Guidance on "Affirming the Confessions"
Dear Office of the General Secretary (OGS),
Thank you for this updated guidance. The church where I am a member is currently in the midst of discerning potential disaffiliation. As part of that discernment process, church visitors from our classis came to visit yesterday. I asked to meet with them, and they were able and willing to accommodate that request. In preparation for that meeting, I sent a very real scenario about which I was seeking clarity.
The heart of the scenario is whether an officebearer can humbly submit to the CRCNA's confessional theology, even if they have a settled conviction contrary to a doctrine contained in the confessions.
Here's the scenario: imagine an elderly Christian who has served multiple terms already as an elder in our local CRCNA. He has a settled conviction that the Bible does not teach the doctrine of infant baptism. But in all his terms as elder, he has always humbly submitted that our local church holds to the doctrine that affirms infant baptism. He has never taught against it, and has never tried to push for a revision of this confessional conclusion. From my perspective, he has served for literally decades already as a faithful officebearer in our local church. He has never 'made an issue' of his difference. He has never tried to persuade others to align with him. Rather, we as a church felt that it was fine for him to hold office because he was willing to humbly submit to not teach against the church's teaching, even while holding a settled conviction that differed. It is true that he did not 'live in conformity' with the CRC's doctrine of infant baptism as he did not have his children baptized as infants (instead, for that decision, he followed his settled conviction).
I brought this scenario to the church visitors.
My impression (and my impression may be wrong) is that the church visitors tried to make room for humble submission, even using words like you use here ("affirm the confessions") with less emphasis on the "without reservation" phrase. My sense is that they felt such a decision is not sufficiently clarified in CRCNA's Church Order (various pastors/councils may have different 'takes' on such a question) -- and so the situation could be left up to the local church as to whether or not this person could sign the Covenant for Officebearers and serve as an officebearer in the CRCNA.
Question for OGS: What do you think?
My impression (and again, my impression may be wrong) is that your Guidance here would suggest that there is no room for this long-time officebearer to continue as an officebearer in the CRCNA. As I read your guidance, all officebearers should have their children baptized as infants (part of "living in conformity" with the confessions). And that recent synodical decisions have clarified that there is no longer room for humble submission to the churches teaching while still holding a 'settled conviction' contrary to that teaching.
Please advise. Thank you for your work.
In Christ,
Rev. Paul Verhoef
Posted in: Guidance on "Affirming the Confessions"
Hello John! Thanks for this. Fun, eh? I have some professor friends who LOVE playing with ChatGPT as a pedagogical tool.
A couple initial comments/questions:
ChatGPT says that the "authorship of Hebrews" is non-adjudicated. It also says that my question about baptism is non-adjudicated. If that is true, that raises two questions.
(1) Tell me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that OGS wants to avoid speaking about the 'close, but out of bounds' settled convictions (they do not want to articulate, "Sadly, given recent decisions, it is now clear that this person would not be allowed in office") but this article demonstrates that they are willing to speak about the 'close, but acceptable' settled convictions (where OGS is willing to say, "Even with this settled conviction, this person would be allowed in office"). Why not speak about both (to be honest about what maybe has changed) or avoid speaking about either (to really focus on the local council discernment)?
(2) What if a local council actually wants to locally adjudicate the authorship of Hebrews, and wants to decide that such a settled conviction DOES keep a person out of office? Has the OGS -- by writing this up in this way -- subtly removed that local authority?
Posted in: Guidance on "Affirming the Confessions"
Thank you, Rev. Patrick Anthony, for carefully reading my question and for sharing the intention of the two committees you were on in Synod 2023 and Synod 2024. It is helpful to see why you did what you did. It was also helpful to read, in tandem, the comments below of Rev. Joel Vande Werken. If "clarity is kindness," I think your comments read together provide additional helpful clarity to this article. Much appreciated.
Posted in: Guidance on "Affirming the Confessions"
Thank you, Joel, for the additional synodical references. As you of all people know, there is a LOT to read in the history of synodical decisions, and it is helpful to have a response from someone like you who is called to steward those decisions for the wider body. As I said to Rev. Patrick Anthony above, if "clarity is kindness," I think your comments here read together with Rev. Anthony's provide additional helpful clarity to this article. I imagine it will prove helpful as our church asks "Do we want to remain in the CRCNA?" -- a very painful question to even ask, but better to be asked with as much clarity as possible around the consequences of a "yes" response. Much appreciated.
Posted in: Guidance on "Affirming the Confessions"
At about the same time I wrote responses to Revs. Anthony and Vande Werken this morning, Shiao Chong (former Editor-in-Chief of The Banner, who resigned in protest after changes to The Banner's mandate by Synod 2025) posted on Facebook. He shared his article published this morning online via the Christian Courier (CC) -- also in their October print addition. His situation seems like one additional piece of information / clarity around recent decisions of CRCNA synods. He wrote this on FB, and then linked the CC article:
No Room for Not Sure -- article for Christian Courier. In this article, I described how the "middle ground" in my denomination, the Christian Reformed Church in North America, has shrunk, leaving no room for even people who are "not sure" about the same-sex marriage debate.
https://www.christiancourier.ca/no-room-for-not-sure/
Posted in: A Message to Canadians From Religious Leaders in Response to Covid19
Darren, thanks for this good work. There has been some strong critique of this work in other Facebook places -- here's what I've written there in reply, for what it's worth.
Sisters and Brothers in Jesus, I myself am glad that such a document as this is shared in Canada. It calls for human solidarity, it invites words and acts of gratitude, and it calls us to live out of our living hope. As such, I am glad it is signed on to by the CRC-Canada. I think it resonates with my hope as a CRC person in Canada to 'stand together' in the midst of this current crisis. And by 'standing together', I do not mean believing the same thing; I mean working together for the common good and finding courage to do so in the acts of loving kindness we experience from and share with our neighbours.
I sense that one of the things that creates the concerns noted here is that this document is signed by people from other religious communities, and that this multiple-religious signing means that we have to hold to the 'lowest common denominator' of meaning. I myself do not think that, just because a communal document is signed by various people, that signing it must mean that I understand ‘how it means’ in the exact same way as everyone else who signs it. I do not need to think that what ‘God’ and ‘Creator’ means to me must mean the same thing as ‘God’ and ‘Creator’ (or even ‘hope’, ‘gratitude,’ etc) means to the other signer(s).
With that in mind, I read the document (and would sign it) as a Christian. And it seems to me that this document, if read as a Christian, is able to be read as fitting orthodox Christian theology (maybe it'd be good to hear quotes from it that I missed - that are clearly not fitting with being a Christian). If it was written ONLY by Christians, for Christians, then I imagine it would have an even more Christian-specific posture/language/orientation (surely it would mention Jesus as the source of our hope, etc).
But it is not written as a specifically Christian document – and that’s where I hear that many on this page are finding it complicated/problematic. I would note that, while it does not add the Christian-specific posture (Jesus is not mentioned), it also does not say things like “We all believe in the same God; we all believe the same things about the Creator and the creation.”
My own work as a Christian chaplain in a multi-faith setting, working alongside of chaplains from 10 other global religions, means that I navigate the challenges presented in this document often. How can we together write something together, that we hold commonly true? We struggled with this when the University asked us to add in a document that we ‘celebrate all diversity.’ Some, including me, struggled with that phrase. All diversity? Do we celebrate that people believe different things about God (or don't believe in God at all?), celebrate that religious diversity? Do we honestly celebrate all diversity? I don’t. So we asked to shift the document to say ‘we respect diversity.’ But even that could be pulled apart and argued with. These are complicated matters, and I think this document demonstrates a good way forward – even if not perfect.
Posted in: 'Guide for a Clergy Leave of Absence for Mental Health Reasons' Toolkit
Good work like this seems to stand the test of time. Here I am, 4 years later, finding this helpful and good again. Thanks again, Mark (and any others that helped assemble this piece). It is good to be a part of this denominational community, to be enveloped in the care and wisdom gathered, and to be a part of the work of sharing the wisdom in helpful ways to my local community.
Posted in: Dee Recker Retires After 23 Years! Share a Memory or Note Here
Oh Dee! Remember the first time we met at synod? I had heard so many good things about you from my dad, Rev. Will Verhoef, who enjoyed you at synods and through work as a synodical deputee and classical clerk. Forget hollywood movie stars or famous theologians. Dee Recker was FAMOUS in our house! ;-) And then I FINALLY got to meet you at Synod 2013. All the "Dee" stories were brought to life - your kindness, your care for our community, your excellent work, your smile, and just enough playfulness to feel a bit like family. Thanks for using those God-given gifts for so many years in the CRCNA. We are better because you did -- to God be the glory! Thanks Dee - and so much love to you!
Posted in: Homosexuality and Our Missional Calling
Andrew,
I find the 'global church' and 'history of tradition' conversation to need to be more nuanced. I find a few complicating factors quickly rise to the surface upon my first-blush consideration.
One of those complications is that many of us have experienced a dissonance regarding our traditional theological views BECAUSE we have encountered faithful same-sex married Christian couples who have been together for over a significant time and seem to be flourishing on all fronts. NOTE: this doesn't mean we have abandoned Scripture; rather the dissonance has driven us to return to Scripture to re-examine our traditional perspective with renewed attention (one example of the helpfulness of re-examining traditional conclusions more thoroughly is seen in the work of the 1973 report regarding 'Sodom and Gomorrah' and 'sodomy').
Here's the complication - same-sex marriage isn't legal in sooooooo many countries - so how can this dissonance be experienced, and without the dissonance, one must at least ask if there is a curiosity to re-examine a traditional perspective and its biblical hermeneutics? Here is a PEW article that gives a glimpse (https://www.pewresearch.org/.../global-snapshot-same-sex.../) - but also note that in MOST of these countries with same-sex marriage, the legalization is recent (so again, how much dissonance will Christians be experiencing)?
So one possible conclusion would be that the history of tradition AND the global church are in (general, not universal) agreement because, for most of human history and in most places today globally, same sex marriage is simply not legal.
Thoughts about that?
Posted in: Homosexuality and Our Missional Calling
Eric - thanks for the reply. It is precisely your concern around the need to 'discern' flourishing that caused me to put in the word 'seem.' I do not know the inner life and know I am not the final judge of these things. On the other hand, it seems that in many stories of Scripture, we are drawn in to places where faith is flourishing in places where the community was not expecting it - so I also would not want to assume that 'faith could never flourish there' and have that assumption close off the community from discerning what may be the work of the Spirit.
Andrew - I think if the CRCNA is going to engage in dialogue around this very controversial topic, it will be helpful for us to be careful with our words. In marriage counselling, in controversial conversations at my work, and also notably in the facilitation training for the "Challenging Conversations Toolkit" - in all those places, it seems helpful to speak from the position of 'I' and not speak in generalizations or accusatory ways about others.
In your reply to me, you say: "As I see it Paul, your experience...drives you to reintepret (revise) Scripture, placing the authority of human experience at the same level (or higher than) Biblical authority." That single statement seems to be accusing me of both revising Scripture and elevating human experience at least parallel to, but perhaps higher than Scripture. As a minister in the CRCNA and a steward of God's Word, I consider these serious statements, indeed serious accusations. I am sure I have made mistakes along the way in how I've interpreted Scripture - indeed, I got a really poor grade on a sermon at Calvin Seminary that exposed to me what biases I brought to that text. And I believe that 'we are in this together' - so I was thankful when Dr. Greidanus and Rev. Roeda served me well by gently and honestly 'calling me into a conversation' about how I had mis-handled God's Word. I invite you to do the same.
But here, it seems that you are making accusations that, as far as I can tell, have no basis in my post itself. My sense is that I was clear that experience can be a cause to return to Scripture to 're-examine it with renewed attention.' I imagine, if you listen to your own life, you can find experiences of your own that have driven you back to Scripture, to re-examine with renewed attention. For me, something as basic as sensing a call to be a minister was one of those experiences - it called me to re-examine Scripture with renewed attention.
I also get concerned about the way you put side-by-side the words reintepret and revise. Twice you wrote 'reinterpret (revise) Scripture.' I think we are called to question our interpretations of Scripture, and re-evaluate them. I appreciated that the 1973 report 42 on Homosexuality did this fairly clearly around the Sodom and Gomorrah story; it challenged what in many places of Christianity was the 'traditional' interpretation of that story, and wondered if the story was not so much directly about homosexual acts (dubbed 'sodomy' in history) and more widely about sexual violence. So...yes, I believe we are called to continually return to Scripture and evaluate our human interpretations of this revelation of God. But putting the word 'revise' as a parallel to 'reinterpret' seems to me to be a problem, especially when the direct object of the verb is Scripture. I have not seen people 'revise Scripture' in this conversation. All those I have read (DeYoung, Sprinkle, Webb, Hays, Vines, Gushee, Achtemeier, etc) have been exceptionally clear that they are working with Scripture as we have received it. None of them have 'revised Scripture' (at least in how I understand that word to mean: alter, amend, modify; there may be a more 'British' use that I think I encountered in Harry Potter that comes closer to re-examine or study carefully). But in our CRCNA climate, it feels to me that saying people are 'revising Scripture' is most commonly heard as 'altering Scripture.' I haven't seen this by any listed above, though some have clearly 'reinterpreted Scripture.' I simply do not think that using those words as synonyms in this particular situation is helpful (maybe in Britain, if I'm interpreting Harry Potter correctly).
And I think the connecting or paralleling of the two words in our context could lead us to something that concerns me: we could forget that our interpretations are fallible. To me, this is one of the concerns in the 'science' area of the Human Sexuality Report. It rightly notes that science is a fallible tool that we use to 'interpret' God's revelation in creation. Creation is the revelation - but our interpretations may be wrong. But I wish a parallel statement was made about 'hermeneutics and exegesis.' I wish the report would have followed up by noting that our hermeneutics and exegesis are fallible tools that we use to interpret God's revelation in Scripture. Scripture is the revelation - but our interpretations may be wrong. To use the image from the report, we may sometimes need to check the prescription of our glasses - we may not be seeing as clearly as we think.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
Henry,
I am thankful that you entered into this conversation. Indeed, the report's declaration that "the church's teaching on premarital sex, extramarital sex, adultery, polyamory, pornography, and homosexual sex already has confessional status" (followed by a parallel recommendation for Synod to adopt) was surprising to me. I posted this article the network on October 20, 2020, before the report came out: https://network.crcna.org/crcna-and-synod/same-sex-marriage-resources-and-church-order-history-crcna. At the very end of that linked resource, I had written: The fact that the committee was asked to reflect on and evaluate whether future synods should consider the confessional status of this matter demonstrates that it currently is not in that category. It has been a decision of pastoral advice to the churches since 1973. And with you, I focus that whole resource on same-sex marriage (though of course this current report's declaration and following recommendation include much more than only homosexual sex.
But this report also seems to ask quite clear questions that it does not answer about what would happen if Synod agrees with that declaration/recommendation or if Synod decides itself to make the report's articulation on homosexual sex a confessional-status position.
Here is the pertinent paragraph from page 145 of the report:
If a teaching is declared to have confessional status, questions arise about what that means for those who sign the Covenant for Officebearers (CFO) in the CRCNA. Will those who have already signed it need to accept this new item as having confessional status? What happens if they don’t? Will those who subsequently sign the CFO need to accept this new item?
This paragraph has already been reference on the CRC Pastors Facebook page, and councils have already asked, "What could this mean? Would we (elders, deacons, and pastors) need to all affirm that we agree with this report's conclusions, or leave office?"
It is my sense that since Synod 1973, the CRC has had a clear position (that's the language from their mandate - 'position') - but that statements of pastoral advice are what constitute that position. As you've written in your Commentary on the Church Order (2010 edition, pp 168-169), "[Synod] expected a “healthy respect” for its decisions, not creedal attachment. Officebearers would not be subject to dismissal from office based on unorthodox views, but only on disrespect for what the synod decided."
So my sense is that, for 48 years, the CRC has had space for respectful disagreement about homosexual sex (and by extension, same-sex marriage). Any office-bearer could disagree with the CRCNA's position, and still respect it. If the recommendations of this report are accepted, it seems to me that the CRCNA has made a significant change - that space for respectful disagreement shrinks considerably. The question being asked is: how small does it become?
The report itself mentions some potential room: "Even if a teaching has confessional status, that does not mean there is no room for disagreement within the bounds of that teaching. In addition, the church sometimes allows for pastoral accommodations. For example, our confessions say that the children of believers should be baptized. Yet some congregations are willing to allow members not to baptize their children." (145)
So again, Henry (and others who wish to enter in), how would you articulate how that 'space for respectful disagreement' will change? How much does it shrink? How would you articulate the space left, and who can be there? While Synod is able to make this decision, is there a history of other decisions where Synod 'changes the rules' significantly after 48 years? I would imagine for some, a similar 'threat to belonging' was sense if the Belhar was added to the CfO (which it was not because of that concern, I believe). If this goes through, I imagine one response may be that some office-bearers will be dusting off the part of the Church Order around gravamans. Another response is that some churches may simply not worry about any new declaration of Synod. I also imagine a third response: if the CRC's position on homosexual sex is raised to a confessional-status agreement, it provides leverage to push out those who for 48 years felt like they were able to belong even though they 'respectfully disagreed.' What's your sense of all this possibility?
Posted in: Status Confessionis
It is my understanding that Dr. DeMoor is saying, "The discernment of how to flesh out these larger category words (like 'unchastity'), considering what they mean in the particular temporal and geographical context, is the very work of the local church. The confessions were written with these wide words; and the history of the church is that it does the work, usually at the local level, of applying these wide words."
I would suggest that it is generally unwise to ask Synod to maintain lists of sins that fall under each large-category word: "belittle, hate, insult" (HC 105), "theft and robbery,...scheming and swindling,...greed" (HC 110), "do what I can to guard and advance my neighbor's good name" (HC 112). There are likely all sorts of ways that we would agree, as a denomination of local churches, on what constitutes some of those pieces. But we have not gone as far to make those clarifications 'binding.' For instance, we could deliberate and decide denominationally around the question, "Is charging interest on a loan "greed"? How much interest is too much? When does it become 'usury'?" What if we discovered that Ursinus, in his commentary on the Catechism, had written that 3% interest is the maximum; anything more is greed? Would Ursinus's perspective be 'confessional' for the CRC today? Absolutely not.
I think the point Dr. De Moor is making is that the CRCNA has not, at a denominational/Synodical level ever made the clear decision that 'homosexual sex' is part of the CRCNA's confessional standards as sinful. He has acknowledged that Ursinus thinks it is sinful. Also, that Ursinus considers homosexual set to be in the category of 'unchastity'. Dr. DeMoor has clearly said that the CRCNA has said it is sinful. What the CRCNA has NOT said is that the belief that 'homosexual sex is sinful' needs to be held at the confessional level of agreement/adherence. And he is asking us to do the work to disprove him - so look at the history. Has the CRCNA ever made a statement that we (the CRCNA) decided that 'homosexual sex is sinful' is a statement held to the highest level of denominational agreement (confession/creedal agreement)? The answer, at least as I read every response in this chain, is "No, we cannot point to that place in CRCNA history." We have said, "Homosexual sex is a sin", and that is our CRCNA's 'position', but we have not raised that position to the level of 'confessional/creedal agreement.' Instead, it has been at the agreement level called "pastoral advice."
He has also said that Synod 2021 may change that. Synod's have the freedom to do so. But he disagrees with the Human Sexuality reports conclusion that 'it is already confessional.' That's the conversation as I am reading it.