Thanks for your engagement. It is indeed a staggering number, one that I'm afraid we've corporately become all too comfortable accepting as reality. I'm not sure what the modern-day equivalent of sackcloth and ashes is, but it seems like your call to repentance is a good start. Thanks for your supportive and encouraging words.
Thanks for opening a conversation. I will try to answer your questions directly and perhaps add a bit of commentary that gets at the broader conversation.
If I may begin by noting a couple things about myself for context. I am heavily Canadian influenced, as my Dad was from Canada (though not a citizen) and much of his family remains there. This led to a lot of Canadian visits and Canadian influence from a young age. As I got older I had additional reasons to visit, with two married siblings settling in Canada and my Mom eventually remarrying a Canadian after the passing of my Dad. Politically I am usually what someone might call conservative, but likely not fitting in a neat box. I did not vote for President Trump and find him in many ways highly objectionable.
With that context, to your questions (beginning with the title question).
"What Does It Mean to Be a Bi-National Denomination When the Rhetoric Between the Two Nations Becomes Bitter?" For me it means first and foremost that we are reminded that the reasons for and base of our historic union is not geographic, political, social, or cultural, but rather spiritual - we have a common confession. In other words, national rivalry does not change or damage our union, because our union was never based on a congenial national relation, but a much deeper spiritual union. In that spirit we can view the passing cares of geo-political machinations with a settled confidence in our mutual commitment to spiritual union.
"Do our American siblings believe the things the current administration has said about the Canadian border? Or who exploits whom in terms of trade?" Of course, I cannot speak to the totality of thinking of American CRC members, so I will offer my own perspective, colored by those I am familiar with in the CRC. Some the answer to that question depends on what statements or policy positions you are thinking of. Regarding trade, many U.S. CRC members will agree to an extent about the thrust of Trump rhetoric regarding certain Canadian protectionist trade practices. Now, all countries seek to protect their own interests - that much is fairly plain. Many U.S. CRC members are involved in agriculture, and it is not a secret that Canada has highly protectionist policies and tariffs for agriculture. In this Trump is not wrong. In true Trump fashion he overstates the matter for effect. It has often been said: Don't take Trump literally but do take him seriously. He's a showman at heart, and he does and says things for dramatic effect - always has and always will. Sometimes this has worked for him, sometimes it has failed. To that degree, his rhetoric on trade with Canada is overheated and not always accurate, though it contains some underlying realities.
As for Trump's rhetoric on the 51st state, most Americans think of that as a joke, and it mostly is. I say "mostly" because here again Trump is exaggerating and being over-the-top, but with intended purpose, and it plays right into certain historic Canadian self-perceptions. Is Trump's style of diplomacy odd and abrasive at times? Most definitely. Is the U.S. going to invade, annex, conquer, or otherwise subsume Canada against their will? Most definitely not. Interestingly enough, though many disapprove of Trump and his sabre-rattling style of international engagement, Trump has not been the cause of international conflict or war. Trump's actual record is surprisingly one of peace. Personally, I have a great love for Canada and do not desire to see Canada degraded or disrespected. I do, however, also realize that the vast majority of daily concerns for Canadians are not Trump-caused, but products of Canada's own political decisions. It is partly for this reason that Canadians are being told by their government that Trump is the cause of what ails them - it distracts from Canada's own internal failures, which are legion.
I recently visited Canada and found myself quite literally under verbal attack in several situations once it was known that I was visiting from America (despite the fact that I am not a Trump voter). It was clear to me that for a certain segment of the population the government and an attendant press have done a good job of re-directing their anger from the ruling liberals to America or Americans, or at least anything related to Trump. Having said that, my Christian, CRC, and family connections in Canada make abundantly clear to me that Canadians are by no means of one mind regarding the seriousness of or damage caused by Trump rhetoric or policy. Many (including CRC members) are not at all looking for sympathy, solidarity, or the like in light of current geo-political happenings.
"Do we share faith without being willing to share worries and concerns?" Not at all. Certainly we seek to bear each others' burdens, rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. But we also must be aware that worries and concerns vary greatly. The CRC recently did put out a pastoral letter recognizing pain, hurt, concern among many Canadians. For some this statement was unnecessary and unhelpfully reactive. For others this statement was far short of adequate. Therein lies some of the challenge of denominational statements that attempt to represent a broad constituency with widely varying political, social, cultural, and economic perspectives. At the congregational level you may be surprised to know how many U.S. churches are praying for healed national relations. These things happen organically and without the sounding of trumpets or the publication of letters.
Thanks for raising these questions, as they make for interesting conversation and opportunity to understand each others' perspectives better.
This posting raises in me some thoughts/ponderings:
I am thankful that denominational staff have called the church’s attention to this important day of remembrance.
The past number of years have seen the institutional CRC exhibit an “all lives matter” approach and message concerning Sanctity of Human Life Sunday. I find this unhelpful. Sanctity of Human Life Sunday originated specifically to call national attention to the wanton destruction of unborn human life. A day of remembrance, petition, and lament loses some of its effectiveness if it is expanded broadly. Yes, all life matters. But making Sanctity of Human Life Sunday into a catch-all detracts from its original purpose. Adding disability concerns to Sanctity of Human Life Sunday detracts from due attention to the plight of the unborn in the same manner as if we broadened Disability Awareness Sunday to include the value and inclusion of the abled. Consider this: if everything is special, then nothing is special. A birthday is special to a child (in particular) because it is their birthday. To say to your 4-year-old daughter that all of her siblings will be celebrated and given gifts on her birthday because all are special and were born at one time will be to solicit a quizzical or perhaps frustrated and angry response - the child understands this phenomenon.
Perhaps not unrelatedly, the “all lives matter” approach lends tacit approval to the common slander that pro-life Christians only care about children being born and don’t care about them afterward. By pivoting Sanctity of Human Life Sunday to a broad approach one gives credence to the slander in a “the lady dost protest too much, methinks” manner. In other words, the proper response to this slander is to repudiate it, not to dilute the pro-life message of concern for the unborn. The slander that pro-life Christians only care about the unborn for partisan political reasons (wedge issue, culture war) and stop caring after a child is born is simply meant to delegitimize the pro-life message and distract from the horror of what abortion is.
There is language in this prayer that I find unhelpful, even morally deficient. The sentence in question is this sentence: “For the unborn, grant strength, wisdom and compassion to women and men who face hard choices about ending pregnancies.” Suppose we change this sentence up a bit for rhetorical effect so that it reads as follows: “For the children, grant strength, wisdom and compassion to women and men who face hard choices about killing them.” About what other forms of murder would we speak in this manner? Do we posit that it’s a “hard choice” whether or not to kill our parents, our neighbor, our spouse? By using language like this the church lends credibility to the idea that it may be morally acceptable to in fact terminate a pregnancy. This language introduces moral ambiguity where moral clarity is required. It’s not a hard choice whether or not children should be killed. Underneath any troubled pregnancy often exist very hard circumstances, and we should rightly acknowledge that and pray for strength and wisdom to deal with those hard circumstances. We ought rightly to pray and act on behalf of those facing difficult circumstances. But we can and should do this without introducing moral ambiguity into the question of murder.
Hi Jim. To be sure my characterization is understated, but it is not meant to minimize the "disturbance" we are experiencing. I was instead hoping to avoid sensationalizing our current moment by describing our moment in sober and simple terms. I hope that the use of that one word does not distract you so much that you miss the content. Perhaps you are already in agreement that the work of Synod 2024 has been improperly impugned.
No doubt I weep with you over any division in the church. I appreciate your perspective - thanks for sharing it.
Hi Sherry. If by tell you mean that I've tipped my hand that I disagree with those who are improperly characterizing the work of Synod 2024 you are absolutely correct. The "tell' was a feature, not a bug for me. I believe I have properly used the term and explained why it is applicable. If you find something untruthful in what I have written, I should hear about it, if you'd be so kind.
The church order does in fact provide for suspensions. Synod 2024 enacted suspensions. Those are not characterizations, opinions, or simply my perspective - they are indisputable facts.
Are there other truths that you'd like to bring to bear on the discussion? I'm glad to hear your perspective and any other facts that you'd like to bring forward. Thanks for engaging.
Hi Sherry. Thanks for continuing the conversation. I don't believe that I have offered myself as an expert in church order, nor do I believe that disqualifies me from reading, comprehending, and commenting on the Church Order in the life of the church. Not being present at synod this year also does not disqualify me from watching and reading of the work of synod (YouTube, Acts of Synod2024), comprehending that work, and also commenting on it.
I wonder if you'd be interested in interacting with the actual content of my post. You almost seem to want to change the topic to my qualifications (or lack thereof) and your own general characterizations of Synod 2024. Those are interesting enough topics, I guess, but they completely miss the point of what I wrote. Is there something in my analysis that you find factually incorrect, and if so, would you be willing to explain where/how you believe I have misrepresented? Thanks again for the ongoing conversation - I always value interaction.
Hello Henry. Thanks for joining the conversation. You are correct that I did not delve into that discussion, as it is beyond the bounds of what I was responding to. I was specifically responding to the allegation that Synod made up a category of discipline, which I contend is not true.
The question you raise is a different question, but it is interesting to consider and has also been a point of contention concerning Synod. I would note a couple things:
Discipline of officebearers is serious and the lack of discipline of errant officebearers is intolerable. Consider:
“When officebearers no longer honor their commitment to subscribe to the church’s creed in whole or in any part and persist in that error, the council has no option but to suspend or depose.”
“There is a solemn obligation to act. Leadership comes with heavy responsibilities. It is possible, from time to time, to allow a member to express reservations about our confessions. On the other hand, when the ordained do this the result is intolerable confusion. The congregation has a right to expect that its leaders will carry out their responsibilities in tune with the beliefs and commitments of the denomination it belongs to.” (DeMoor, Henry. Christian Reformed Church Order Commentary. Faith Alive 2010. Pg. 421)
Church Order serves the churches, not the other way around. Article 79 of the Church Order indicates our responsibility to one another that supersedes and frames what follows. “The members of the church are accountable to one another in their doctrine and life and have the responsibility to encourage and admonish one another in love.” To hold that synod is unable to act where the council and classis refuse to act is to render that accountability moot or impossible.
Your commentary goes on after Article 79:
“The assertion of Article 79a is as alien to our individualist culture as you can get.” (Pg. 404)
“Article 79, on the other hand, insists that members of the church belong to one another, live in community, and are mutually accountable ‘in doctrine and in life.’ They are actually called to meddle in the lives of their brothers and sisters in Christ.”(Pg. 405)
“Paul warns that ‘a little yeast leavens the whole batch of dough’ (I Cor. 5:6) and reminds believers that it takes a community to lift an individual out of the doldrums of sin (2 Cor. 2:5-11). All Christians together must ‘see to it that no one falls shrot of the grace of God and that no bitter root grow up to cause trouble and defile many (Heb. 12:15).” (Pg. 405)
It will not do to act as if the Synods of 2022-2024 were acting in a typical situation. We have not seen these synods act as if they have a newfound interest in and desire to reach down into the affairs of local councils or classes to micromanage affairs and usurp local authority. Rather, the discipline you so rightly say must happen to avoid intolerable confusion was not happening. And this after years of appeals to individual churches and to Classis GRE. It will also not do for you to characterize what has occurred as discipline “after just two or three hours of deliberation on the issue.” That is simply not true. Years have passed as churches and classes have appealed to Neland and GRE about their actions and lack of actions. Synod 2022 sought to shepherd them to action. Synod 2023 instructed classes to guide officebearers and churches into compliance. None of this was heeded, and instead the leavening effect that you reference from Paul was indeed impacting the church greatly – it was spreading at a rapid rate.
And what did Paul do in the 1 Cor. passage that you reference in your commentary? For the good of the church and the glory of God he acted because the local church refused to. Synod was left with no choice but to act because local churches and classes refused to act and heed the admonition of their brothers and sisters in Christ who are duty bound to “meddle”, as you put it. The Church Order is not a tool to wield as a technical stop to brothers and sisters realizing the Bible’s call for accountability. God’s call to us supersedes all written code.
Further from your commentary on the assemblies of the churches:
Quoting Synod 1980 – “Classis Huron ‘did not exceed its authority when it engaged itself with the situation and Goderich CRC. Christ gave authority to the church as a whole and thereby entrusted authority to the occasions of its exercise in classis and synod as gatherings of the church to maintain the unity of the congregations in both doctrine and discipline (Acts of Synod, 1980, p. 28).’” (Pg. 28)
Quoting Synod 1982 – “Synod of 1980 declared that it is indeed proper according to Reformed Church polity for either classis or synod to intervene in the affairs of a local congregation, if the welfare of that congregation is at stake (Acts of Synod, 1982, p. 55)” (Pg. 152)
The Church Order advisory committee to Synod 1926 observed:
“It is an out of the ordinary case when a consistory in its majority or all of its members deserve deposition. And the contents of a Church Order cannot, in the nature of the case, cover all imaginary or possible instances, but only the most usual.”
“Also it must not be forgotten, that our CO is not a constitution, covering all sub-divisions, but a collection of general and guiding ecclesiastical governmental principles, which must be applied in concrete cases according to circumstances, when such cases occur which are not stipulated in detail in the CO.”
Taken together in the context of what has been occurring in the CRC the preceding helps to paint a picture of a synod that labored diligently within our Church Order and historic Reformed polity to deal with a situation unlike any in the history of our denomination. To fail to do so would have been a dereliction of duty resulting in “intolerable confusion.”
Hello Rick. Thanks for your contribution. I was responding to a particular criticism which has been expressed publicly in multiple places. You are addressing something different than I did. My assertion of "canard" is not aimed at what you are talking about.
Rather than respond directly here again to issues of the application of discipline by synod, I would point you to my response to Henry elsewhere in this thread.
I'm not sure whether you realize it or not, but the protest of Minnkota is authorized in explicit terms in Church Order. The Supplement for Article 45 reads in part: "Delegates who believe the seating of (or election of) women delegates (or synodical deputies) is in violation of the Word of God may record their protest on the appropriate credentials. Their names, along with protests, shall be recorded in the minutes of synod." This is, of course, a byproduct of the "dual position" that the CRC took on WICO. The protests that Synod 2024 dealt do not derive from any such dual position or explicit authorization, and as such the parallel that you seek is not there.
I am thankful for your engagement and glad to hear further thoughts that you might have.
Hi Diane. Thanks for offering your thoughts. I always appreciate the opportunity for conversation, and I appreciate the willingness that you demonstrate here to seek conversation.
If I may begin with words of appreciation. I love your reference to I Cor. 12 – such a special and meaningful verse, and so appropriate for our ongoing reflection. The ramifications of such a view of our life in the church are such that their depth will not be plumbed in our lifetimes. Thank you for this reference and reminder.
I affirm your instinct and assertion that lament is deeper and bigger than saying “I’m sorry”. Certainly Scripture models something much deeper, more personal, more heart-wrenching in its laments. Triteness will not serve us well in lament.
I further appreciate your challenge to grow and learn from others – this is an evergreen challenge in the church and in our personal lives. There never is a bad time to strive for growth and to learn from others, and if we ever cease in these endeavors we will stagnate.
Pivoting a bit, I hope you might consider a few thoughts from a different (to use a popular phrase) “lived experience”.
I am unfamiliar with the dearth of lament that you begin your reflection with. I wonder a bit if you are well-positioned to conclude broadly that “expression of deep pain and hurt and the ability to put words to that suffering and lay it at the feet of Jesus is something most of us do not understand” or that “we do not do it well” (emphases added). My observations along these lines are different, though I will not posit that they are universally applicable. If I may offer a few areas in which I have observed things in contrast to your conclusions.
My first observation relates to my 52 years of church and personal life, which have been rife with the practice of lament. One of the first and most obvious ways that I have seen this in practice has been through the reading, praying, singing, and preaching of the Psalms, many of which are or contain laments. Beyond this we find that the prophets also modeled lament. One of the things I think laments in Scripture include that I see missing from some modern lament is lamenting how we have offended God. Modern laments seem to have plenty of focus on the horizontal (how we have offended each other), but I see less of the vertical (how we have offended God). I think that can be an area of growth for us in the church and certainly in our moment in the CRC. In short, I have observed lament to be much more present and rich than you describe.
My second observation relates to synod, in particular the last three years of synod and your question “Where is the lament?” I was a bit surprised to read your description of the last three years of synod being (somewhat) devoid of lament. I was a delegate to Synod 2022 and observed an abundance of lament, be it corporate and public or personal and intimate. Some of us left that synod dubbing it unofficially the Synod of Lament. Prayers and expressions of lament peppered the proceedings, including a prayer of lament from the members of Committee 8 (HSR committee). I attended portions of Synod 2023 and watched other portions online, and I would describe that synod in similar terms. Synod 2024 similarly to my eyes contained significant lament. I did a quick word search of the Acts of Synod 2022 and 2023 and the Agenda for Synod 2024 (the Acts being as of yet unavailable). By way of comparison, the word “praise” appears 55 times in these documents and the word “lament” appears 57 times. This is somewhat anecdotal, but does serve to be illustrative of my observations, even as it (likely) under-reports what actually occurred (as to frequency). Again, lack of lament is not what I observed.
My third observation relates again to the synods of 2022-2024, but not to the proceedings thereof specifically. Rather, I speak here of the “cloud of witnesses” that prayed over these synods. I have rarely observed such petitioned proceedings, as churches and individuals throughout my sphere of observation poured out their hearts before God in repentance, lament, praise, and intercession. In particular I think of a group that I joined regularly (sometimes in person, sometimes in theme/topic while absent) for prayer on a weekly basis over the last three years. I can testify that lament was regular during these times.
I can believe that you long for greater lament, but I would offer that perhaps the lack of lament is not as prevalent as you believe. I will certainly join you in encouraging godly lament and can absolutely agree that the Biblical call to pray without ceasing always convicts us that we have never “arrived” at any perfect or complete pattern of prayer.
I will offer a last challenge in conclusion. You offer a list of laments near the end of your article. I wonder if you would be willing to reflect on other laments that you have excluded. It seems to me that it is entirely appropriate not just to lament our current malaise and pain, but also what led to these conditions. Can we say we lament…
broken vows and covenants
false teaching
calling evil good and good evil
those led astray
slanders of character
lack of submission where submission was promised
failure to heed correction
our corporate rebellion against God and tolerance of sin
I cannot envision a lament that is pleasing to God that begins and ends on the horizontal, with broken human relationships. It seems to me that we must acknowledge and lament our sins before God that have led to a position where we need to lament broken human relationships. Ultimately all of our lament and brokenness finds its root in the brokenness of our relationship with God, and that deserves our greatest lament.
I am again thankful that you have opened up this topic and thank you in advance for any longsuffering you may have in engaging or considering my responsive thoughts.
I appreciate you thinking out loud and sharing your thoughts with others. I think there are some valuable principles in what you are saying and wisdom to heed.
You did lose me a bit with the red blood cell/white blood cell distinction and your assertion that the purpose of Synod is being missed. I'm not sure I concur on that, at least as broadly as you assert it.
With Lloyd above, I'm also of the mind that you overstate when you say "Each delegate takes the stand to plead their just cause on behalf of their constituents back home." I think you are exercising a bit of unhealthy psychologizing, just plain unflattering guessing, or perhaps unhelpful projection. It seems likely that some people may be tempted to "play to the camera" to a degree and perhaps consider who back home is listening. But I think you state things in much more (derogatively) absolute terms and dismiss the wisdom and maturity of many seasoned church members who do come in good conscience and rise to speak in deliberative fashion out of that conscience. That was my experience in 2022 as a delegate and my observation in the gallery in 2023. I think you are wrong to conclude that "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." I think this is an unhelpfully totalizing and dismissive assessment that does not seem to follow your later godly advice to "assume the best of one another".
My purpose here is not to dismiss your valid points but to work together to sharpen our collective thinking, as also seems to be your goal.
Posted in: The Injustice of Abortion
Hi Bonnie,
Thanks for your engagement. It is indeed a staggering number, one that I'm afraid we've corporately become all too comfortable accepting as reality. I'm not sure what the modern-day equivalent of sackcloth and ashes is, but it seems like your call to repentance is a good start. Thanks for your supportive and encouraging words.
Posted in: What Does It Mean to Be a Bi-National Denomination When the Rhetoric Between the Two Nations Becomes Bitter?
Hi Virginia,
Thanks for opening a conversation. I will try to answer your questions directly and perhaps add a bit of commentary that gets at the broader conversation.
If I may begin by noting a couple things about myself for context. I am heavily Canadian influenced, as my Dad was from Canada (though not a citizen) and much of his family remains there. This led to a lot of Canadian visits and Canadian influence from a young age. As I got older I had additional reasons to visit, with two married siblings settling in Canada and my Mom eventually remarrying a Canadian after the passing of my Dad. Politically I am usually what someone might call conservative, but likely not fitting in a neat box. I did not vote for President Trump and find him in many ways highly objectionable.
With that context, to your questions (beginning with the title question).
"What Does It Mean to Be a Bi-National Denomination When the Rhetoric Between the Two Nations Becomes Bitter?" For me it means first and foremost that we are reminded that the reasons for and base of our historic union is not geographic, political, social, or cultural, but rather spiritual - we have a common confession. In other words, national rivalry does not change or damage our union, because our union was never based on a congenial national relation, but a much deeper spiritual union. In that spirit we can view the passing cares of geo-political machinations with a settled confidence in our mutual commitment to spiritual union.
"Do our American siblings believe the things the current administration has said about the Canadian border? Or who exploits whom in terms of trade?" Of course, I cannot speak to the totality of thinking of American CRC members, so I will offer my own perspective, colored by those I am familiar with in the CRC. Some the answer to that question depends on what statements or policy positions you are thinking of. Regarding trade, many U.S. CRC members will agree to an extent about the thrust of Trump rhetoric regarding certain Canadian protectionist trade practices. Now, all countries seek to protect their own interests - that much is fairly plain. Many U.S. CRC members are involved in agriculture, and it is not a secret that Canada has highly protectionist policies and tariffs for agriculture. In this Trump is not wrong. In true Trump fashion he overstates the matter for effect. It has often been said: Don't take Trump literally but do take him seriously. He's a showman at heart, and he does and says things for dramatic effect - always has and always will. Sometimes this has worked for him, sometimes it has failed. To that degree, his rhetoric on trade with Canada is overheated and not always accurate, though it contains some underlying realities.
As for Trump's rhetoric on the 51st state, most Americans think of that as a joke, and it mostly is. I say "mostly" because here again Trump is exaggerating and being over-the-top, but with intended purpose, and it plays right into certain historic Canadian self-perceptions. Is Trump's style of diplomacy odd and abrasive at times? Most definitely. Is the U.S. going to invade, annex, conquer, or otherwise subsume Canada against their will? Most definitely not. Interestingly enough, though many disapprove of Trump and his sabre-rattling style of international engagement, Trump has not been the cause of international conflict or war. Trump's actual record is surprisingly one of peace. Personally, I have a great love for Canada and do not desire to see Canada degraded or disrespected. I do, however, also realize that the vast majority of daily concerns for Canadians are not Trump-caused, but products of Canada's own political decisions. It is partly for this reason that Canadians are being told by their government that Trump is the cause of what ails them - it distracts from Canada's own internal failures, which are legion.
I recently visited Canada and found myself quite literally under verbal attack in several situations once it was known that I was visiting from America (despite the fact that I am not a Trump voter). It was clear to me that for a certain segment of the population the government and an attendant press have done a good job of re-directing their anger from the ruling liberals to America or Americans, or at least anything related to Trump. Having said that, my Christian, CRC, and family connections in Canada make abundantly clear to me that Canadians are by no means of one mind regarding the seriousness of or damage caused by Trump rhetoric or policy. Many (including CRC members) are not at all looking for sympathy, solidarity, or the like in light of current geo-political happenings.
"Do we share faith without being willing to share worries and concerns?" Not at all. Certainly we seek to bear each others' burdens, rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. But we also must be aware that worries and concerns vary greatly. The CRC recently did put out a pastoral letter recognizing pain, hurt, concern among many Canadians. For some this statement was unnecessary and unhelpfully reactive. For others this statement was far short of adequate. Therein lies some of the challenge of denominational statements that attempt to represent a broad constituency with widely varying political, social, cultural, and economic perspectives. At the congregational level you may be surprised to know how many U.S. churches are praying for healed national relations. These things happen organically and without the sounding of trumpets or the publication of letters.
Thanks for raising these questions, as they make for interesting conversation and opportunity to understand each others' perspectives better.
Posted in: Prayer for Sanctity of Human Life Sunday
This posting raises in me some thoughts/ponderings:
Posted in: Did Synod 2024 Ignore or Violate Church Order?
Hi Jim. To be sure my characterization is understated, but it is not meant to minimize the "disturbance" we are experiencing. I was instead hoping to avoid sensationalizing our current moment by describing our moment in sober and simple terms. I hope that the use of that one word does not distract you so much that you miss the content. Perhaps you are already in agreement that the work of Synod 2024 has been improperly impugned.
No doubt I weep with you over any division in the church. I appreciate your perspective - thanks for sharing it.
Posted in: Did Synod 2024 Ignore or Violate Church Order?
Hi Sherry. If by tell you mean that I've tipped my hand that I disagree with those who are improperly characterizing the work of Synod 2024 you are absolutely correct. The "tell' was a feature, not a bug for me. I believe I have properly used the term and explained why it is applicable. If you find something untruthful in what I have written, I should hear about it, if you'd be so kind.
The church order does in fact provide for suspensions. Synod 2024 enacted suspensions. Those are not characterizations, opinions, or simply my perspective - they are indisputable facts.
Are there other truths that you'd like to bring to bear on the discussion? I'm glad to hear your perspective and any other facts that you'd like to bring forward. Thanks for engaging.
Posted in: Did Synod 2024 Ignore or Violate Church Order?
Hi Sherry. Thanks for continuing the conversation. I don't believe that I have offered myself as an expert in church order, nor do I believe that disqualifies me from reading, comprehending, and commenting on the Church Order in the life of the church. Not being present at synod this year also does not disqualify me from watching and reading of the work of synod (YouTube, Acts of Synod2024), comprehending that work, and also commenting on it.
I wonder if you'd be interested in interacting with the actual content of my post. You almost seem to want to change the topic to my qualifications (or lack thereof) and your own general characterizations of Synod 2024. Those are interesting enough topics, I guess, but they completely miss the point of what I wrote. Is there something in my analysis that you find factually incorrect, and if so, would you be willing to explain where/how you believe I have misrepresented? Thanks again for the ongoing conversation - I always value interaction.
Posted in: Did Synod 2024 Ignore or Violate Church Order?
Hello Henry. Thanks for joining the conversation. You are correct that I did not delve into that discussion, as it is beyond the bounds of what I was responding to. I was specifically responding to the allegation that Synod made up a category of discipline, which I contend is not true.
The question you raise is a different question, but it is interesting to consider and has also been a point of contention concerning Synod. I would note a couple things:
“There is a solemn obligation to act. Leadership comes with heavy responsibilities. It is possible, from time to time, to allow a member to express reservations about our confessions. On the other hand, when the ordained do this the result is intolerable confusion. The congregation has a right to expect that its leaders will carry out their responsibilities in tune with the beliefs and commitments of the denomination it belongs to.” (DeMoor, Henry. Christian Reformed Church Order Commentary. Faith Alive 2010. Pg. 421)
Your commentary goes on after Article 79:
And what did Paul do in the 1 Cor. passage that you reference in your commentary? For the good of the church and the glory of God he acted because the local church refused to. Synod was left with no choice but to act because local churches and classes refused to act and heed the admonition of their brothers and sisters in Christ who are duty bound to “meddle”, as you put it. The Church Order is not a tool to wield as a technical stop to brothers and sisters realizing the Bible’s call for accountability. God’s call to us supersedes all written code.
Taken together in the context of what has been occurring in the CRC the preceding helps to paint a picture of a synod that labored diligently within our Church Order and historic Reformed polity to deal with a situation unlike any in the history of our denomination. To fail to do so would have been a dereliction of duty resulting in “intolerable confusion.”
Posted in: Did Synod 2024 Ignore or Violate Church Order?
Hello Rick. Thanks for your contribution. I was responding to a particular criticism which has been expressed publicly in multiple places. You are addressing something different than I did. My assertion of "canard" is not aimed at what you are talking about.
Rather than respond directly here again to issues of the application of discipline by synod, I would point you to my response to Henry elsewhere in this thread.
I'm not sure whether you realize it or not, but the protest of Minnkota is authorized in explicit terms in Church Order. The Supplement for Article 45 reads in part: "Delegates who believe the seating of (or election of) women delegates (or synodical deputies) is in violation of the Word of God may record their protest on the appropriate credentials. Their names, along with protests, shall be recorded in the minutes of synod." This is, of course, a byproduct of the "dual position" that the CRC took on WICO. The protests that Synod 2024 dealt do not derive from any such dual position or explicit authorization, and as such the parallel that you seek is not there.
I am thankful for your engagement and glad to hear further thoughts that you might have.
Posted in: Did Synod 2024 Ignore or Violate Church Order?
Hello Gerald. Thank you for your kind and encouraging words.
Posted in: Where is the Lament?
"As Christ followers we lament with hope of Jesus' return, and it's good to say together, Come Lord Jesus, come quickly."
Amen.
Posted in: Where is the Lament?
Hi Diane. Thanks for offering your thoughts. I always appreciate the opportunity for conversation, and I appreciate the willingness that you demonstrate here to seek conversation.
If I may begin with words of appreciation. I love your reference to I Cor. 12 – such a special and meaningful verse, and so appropriate for our ongoing reflection. The ramifications of such a view of our life in the church are such that their depth will not be plumbed in our lifetimes. Thank you for this reference and reminder.
I affirm your instinct and assertion that lament is deeper and bigger than saying “I’m sorry”. Certainly Scripture models something much deeper, more personal, more heart-wrenching in its laments. Triteness will not serve us well in lament.
I further appreciate your challenge to grow and learn from others – this is an evergreen challenge in the church and in our personal lives. There never is a bad time to strive for growth and to learn from others, and if we ever cease in these endeavors we will stagnate.
Pivoting a bit, I hope you might consider a few thoughts from a different (to use a popular phrase) “lived experience”.
I am unfamiliar with the dearth of lament that you begin your reflection with. I wonder a bit if you are well-positioned to conclude broadly that “expression of deep pain and hurt and the ability to put words to that suffering and lay it at the feet of Jesus is something most of us do not understand” or that “we do not do it well” (emphases added). My observations along these lines are different, though I will not posit that they are universally applicable. If I may offer a few areas in which I have observed things in contrast to your conclusions.
My first observation relates to my 52 years of church and personal life, which have been rife with the practice of lament. One of the first and most obvious ways that I have seen this in practice has been through the reading, praying, singing, and preaching of the Psalms, many of which are or contain laments. Beyond this we find that the prophets also modeled lament. One of the things I think laments in Scripture include that I see missing from some modern lament is lamenting how we have offended God. Modern laments seem to have plenty of focus on the horizontal (how we have offended each other), but I see less of the vertical (how we have offended God). I think that can be an area of growth for us in the church and certainly in our moment in the CRC. In short, I have observed lament to be much more present and rich than you describe.
My second observation relates to synod, in particular the last three years of synod and your question “Where is the lament?” I was a bit surprised to read your description of the last three years of synod being (somewhat) devoid of lament. I was a delegate to Synod 2022 and observed an abundance of lament, be it corporate and public or personal and intimate. Some of us left that synod dubbing it unofficially the Synod of Lament. Prayers and expressions of lament peppered the proceedings, including a prayer of lament from the members of Committee 8 (HSR committee). I attended portions of Synod 2023 and watched other portions online, and I would describe that synod in similar terms. Synod 2024 similarly to my eyes contained significant lament. I did a quick word search of the Acts of Synod 2022 and 2023 and the Agenda for Synod 2024 (the Acts being as of yet unavailable). By way of comparison, the word “praise” appears 55 times in these documents and the word “lament” appears 57 times. This is somewhat anecdotal, but does serve to be illustrative of my observations, even as it (likely) under-reports what actually occurred (as to frequency). Again, lack of lament is not what I observed.
My third observation relates again to the synods of 2022-2024, but not to the proceedings thereof specifically. Rather, I speak here of the “cloud of witnesses” that prayed over these synods. I have rarely observed such petitioned proceedings, as churches and individuals throughout my sphere of observation poured out their hearts before God in repentance, lament, praise, and intercession. In particular I think of a group that I joined regularly (sometimes in person, sometimes in theme/topic while absent) for prayer on a weekly basis over the last three years. I can testify that lament was regular during these times.
I can believe that you long for greater lament, but I would offer that perhaps the lack of lament is not as prevalent as you believe. I will certainly join you in encouraging godly lament and can absolutely agree that the Biblical call to pray without ceasing always convicts us that we have never “arrived” at any perfect or complete pattern of prayer.
I will offer a last challenge in conclusion. You offer a list of laments near the end of your article. I wonder if you would be willing to reflect on other laments that you have excluded. It seems to me that it is entirely appropriate not just to lament our current malaise and pain, but also what led to these conditions. Can we say we lament…
I cannot envision a lament that is pleasing to God that begins and ends on the horizontal, with broken human relationships. It seems to me that we must acknowledge and lament our sins before God that have led to a position where we need to lament broken human relationships. Ultimately all of our lament and brokenness finds its root in the brokenness of our relationship with God, and that deserves our greatest lament.
I am again thankful that you have opened up this topic and thank you in advance for any longsuffering you may have in engaging or considering my responsive thoughts.
Posted in: Crucial Conversations at Synod, Part II
Hi Justin,
I appreciate you thinking out loud and sharing your thoughts with others. I think there are some valuable principles in what you are saying and wisdom to heed.
You did lose me a bit with the red blood cell/white blood cell distinction and your assertion that the purpose of Synod is being missed. I'm not sure I concur on that, at least as broadly as you assert it.
With Lloyd above, I'm also of the mind that you overstate when you say "Each delegate takes the stand to plead their just cause on behalf of their constituents back home." I think you are exercising a bit of unhealthy psychologizing, just plain unflattering guessing, or perhaps unhelpful projection. It seems likely that some people may be tempted to "play to the camera" to a degree and perhaps consider who back home is listening. But I think you state things in much more (derogatively) absolute terms and dismiss the wisdom and maturity of many seasoned church members who do come in good conscience and rise to speak in deliberative fashion out of that conscience. That was my experience in 2022 as a delegate and my observation in the gallery in 2023. I think you are wrong to conclude that "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." I think this is an unhelpfully totalizing and dismissive assessment that does not seem to follow your later godly advice to "assume the best of one another".
My purpose here is not to dismiss your valid points but to work together to sharpen our collective thinking, as also seems to be your goal.