Thanks for continuing the conversation. For some reason I see no reply from you to Lloyd, so I don't have the benefit of reading and understanding that reply. I think you are making a bit of leap in your comparisons. Synod is not akin to a basketball team or a private family matter. All private confidential matters handled at Synod are in fact done in strict executive session. Everything else concerns our common life together. I disagree that our deliberations at Synod are akin to my serious concern about my spouse or a close personal friend. Those are apples and oranges. So I disagree with you that I should feel bad for speaking openly at Synod on matters that concern the corporate body. You seem to be implying that at Synod we mainly speak about persons. But we don't - in fact it is dissuaded and in some cases we are instructed to approach the President of Synod before ever mentioning a name.
I will stand behind my critique of your quotes, including how you characterized the business or atmosphere of Synod. I think it was wrong and unhelpful of you to accuse the Synod delegates of universally ("each") pleading the cause to their constituents back home instead of being deliberative. I think it was wrong and unhelpful for you to say that the last two years of Synod have borne more similarity to congress than to biblical leadership. I disagree with those assessments and find them unhelpful and distracting to your points where I do find common cause.
As to your concluding questions:
1) I'll assume by "goal" you mean the goal of synodical deliberations. But here I reject your framing. Nothing has to do with who I do or do not "disagree with". That makes things personal to me, and my opinions are not the point. The doctrine of the Word as agreed upon by the church is the point. Also, you present a false choice. Discipline (which unfortunately we are having to speak of regularly at Synod these days) is about both correcting and (when necessary) pruning (C.O. Article 78). The pruning depends on whether or not the correction is heeded. Currently we are seeing a significant lack of heeding correction, which is not encouraging.
2) Leading up to Synod 2022 many churches and classes pleaded passionately with GRE and Neland Ave to turn from their error. I would want this personal and heartfelt pleading. Synod 2022 formed a committee to walk alongside Neland and GRE and guide them. I would want this personal and wise counsel. Synod 2023 took up (but failed to pass) a recommendation for further guidance for Neland and GRE. I would want this further guidance. In fact, when I testified about the HSR on the floor of synod in 2022 my approach and appeal was that the HSR was written for me, that it first speaks to my sin and my temptations, and that I need a church that is willing to hold me to account, to correct me when I am straying. This was my plea and it was an honest plea. I can't imagine feeling loved by a church that would withhold correction from me.
3) We have applied some of the above in (and outside of) Synod, but as noted Synod 2023 failed to faithfully continue in the oversight and correction started in 2022. I think that was not to Synod 2023's credit, and that needs to be remedied. When I was at Synod as a delegate and observer in 2022 and 2023 what I saw was a body agonizing over hard decisions. I saw no callousness, no cruelty, not harshness. I saw gentleness and continued expressions of love. Perfect love? No, that we have yet to exhibit or observe on this side of eternity.
Thanks again for the conversation. These are matters that are worth discussing.
Once again, I don't accept the framing of your question. First, I note that you again pose a false choice. Second, the phraseology of "be right" is unhelpful. I would offer that what I am much of the church are striving for is faithfulness, not a sense or idea of being right. And faithfulness need not be pitted against success as you do in your question. If we are faithful we will achieve exactly as much success as God desires for us, and that "success" may not look like what we desire or envision.
Certainly all of our decisions impact people, that is unavoidable. But that does not mean that in our deliberations we are talking about (specific, individual) people, except on very rare occasions. I think perhaps you overvalue the "step up" from a body of nearly 200 people to that same body with a gallery and cameras. For most elders and deacons, unpracticed as many of us are at public speaking, 200 people could just as well be 2000 people. The gallery and cameras don't up the ante that much. It's not as if 200 people is an intimate group where one feels the safety of privacy. To that degree I don't think privatizing Synod would have much of an effect.
As for further communication, I would counter-propose a both/and. I think a purpose of the Network is to hear each other and discuss publicly for the benefit of the broader group. I am perhaps more reluctant to pull back from public conversation. Having said that I would be only too glad to make your acquaintance more personally if you would find that helpful. I can be reached at [email protected]. Thanks for the conversation thus far.
You can count me as one who is glad that you offered your thoughts despite hesitation. I certainly don’t have all the answers, but I think that the church we are a part of does have answers to a lot of your questions below. I would challenge your framing assertion that the decision of Synod 2022 “was motivated more by a desire to reduce the anxiety in the church than to more effectively minister to members of the LBGTQ community.” As a delegate to Synod 2022 I can confirm that there was a level of anxiety involved in the decision making, but the anxiety was precisely because of the significant ramifications for effective ministry. It was a decision bathed in prayer and motivated by love for God and neighbor.
As to your 3 main points, I would offer a few thoughts.
1. I think you do have a misunderstanding of the mandate that resulted in the HSR. The committee was not told not to re-examine Scripture on the issue of homosexuality. On the contrary, the committee was to prepare a report with “Discussion outlining how a Reformed hermeneutic does or does not comport with readings of Scripture being employed to endorse what are, for the historic church, ground-breaking conclusions regarding human sexual behavior and identification.” Beyond examining Scripture to evaluate our teaching in light of new readings of Scripture the committee was also told to interact with “arguments about a new movement of the Spirit (e.g., Acts 15), as well as conclusions arising from scientific and social scientific studies.” I don’t believe one can accurately characterize that as clearly avoiding re-examining Biblical teaching. We had that macro conversation, it just concluded in a manner or with a conclusion that is not to the liking of some. Seeing through a glass dimly does not mean we cannot know truth – if that was the case we would have nothing upon which to base our faith.
“Any expectations we might have about the "unchastity" of homosexuals needs to be applied to the unchastity of heterosexuals who use pornography.” Yes, and amen, and so concluded the HSR and Synod. You can be entirely sure that when churches know of commitment to and engagement with pornography, they are addressing it as a matter of unchastity. You can be entirely sure that if a movement arose to codify the acceptance and normalization of pornography, the CRC would react by reiterating the teaching of Scripture and emphasizing our understanding of all unchastity being prohibited in the seventh commandment as explained in the catechism. Indeed all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, but Paul explains further in I Corinthians that “such were some of you” and our lives are not to be defined by those patterns of sin any longer. Yes, total depravity is real and affects us all, but thanks be to God he does not leave us in slavery to sin. The homosexual sinner is no worse than the heterosexual sinner, but the remedy for both is repentance, reconciliation, and a life of sanctified growth. I don’t know of any reading of Romans 1 wherein one could conclude that Paul was not condemning sexual immorality. The passage (and its broader context) can (and does) carry more meaning than that, but it inescapably includes that.
2. If you look again at the HSR you will see that each section (pornography, homosexuality, etc.) contains a whole introduction dedicated to examining the topic in light of the cultural context. The HSR is actually soaked in the sort of cultural conversation that you say we have not had. All of the questions you ask following under your second point have been discussed and answered in the HSR and the concluding discussions/decisions of Synod 2022 and 2023.
“Why are we asking homosexuals to practice celibacy (a spiritual gift, according to the Scripture, one which not every one has) while never asking the same sacrifice of hetrosexual members?” First, “we” aren’t asking anything, God is. It is God’s Word that instructs and we follow. Second, it is the teaching of the church based on God’s Word that heterosexual members are called to the same celibacy when living outside of marriage. We teach that, we preach that, we disciple to that, and we attempt to practice that. The ask is the same, though there is no doubt that the challenges are not parallel.
3. As a confessional church we have for our history been quite explicit about what beliefs are necessary for leadership in the CRC. We have always been a church requiring confessional subscription for office bearers. That is not new or in question. A “commitment to Jesus” demands to know just who this Jesus is and what he has done for us. These questions and many more naturally follow, and are worked out in our creeds and confessions. One does not (should not) end up an office bearer in the CRC without knowledge of and accedence to these statements of belief, including the entirety of the Canons. If someone is an office bearer in the CRC without this knowledge or fealty then they have borne false witness in signing the Covenant for Officebearers.
The moral standards that we seek to live by and hold each other accountable to are the standards of God’s moral law. We are not left to flounder or wonder in this area. God in his grace has established for us what a holy and upright life looks like. Like the great apostle Paul we confess our inability to live to this standard perfectly. So, the person addicted to pornography cannot go on sinning with impunity, but must strive to bring their desires and habits in line with God’s holy will. So long as they strive in this way they can be members in good standing. Should they insist that they need not strive, they ought to be corrected by their brothers and sisters. This is the Biblical pattern and the moral imperative of our life together in the church. It’s the only kind of church that I want to be a member of: a church that loves me enough to hold me accountable and correct me when I need correction.
I would suggest to you that we have had each of those macro conversations. These questions are not new and have been wrestled with for generations. May God grant that we demonstrate the willingness to submit ourselves to the authority, judgement, and government of the church on these and other matters as we each have committed as members and also again for those of us as office bearers.
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.
You have offered some very good thoughts and warnings about the limitations and trappings of surveys as a method of listening. Much of it resonates with my experience and observation.
The linked page says that the denomination uses the survey to "listen". I wonder just how much some of the separation and struggle in the CRC would be different if "the denomination" (read: bureaucratic structure) listened more in person at the congregational and classical level and less from offices in Grand Rapids. And yes, diasporic churches would likely also view some of those bureaucratic figures differently as well if allowed interaction that was not mediated through reports, magazines, editorials, and the like.
I don't watch the Super Bowl, so I did not see those particular ads. I have seen their campaign more broadly. Though I share your struggle with the immense sum of money spent on two ads, I have more concern about the campaign in general. I think Natasha Crain's critique hits home on a number of important points. In the end, any Jesus who is not explicitly the Son of God is an empty Jesus.
Thanks for engaging. Did Crain not quote the president of the marketing agency behind the ad campaign as saying “Ultimately, the goal is inspiration, not recruitment or conversion.” And she rightly points it a number of times that the "inspirational" Jesus that they point to is not the God-man Savior, but a nice guy who gets us. It seems like she is not making assumptions about the goal, but responding to a stated goal.
The problem with McKendry's reply above is several-fold. First, they specifically say in their FAQ that the goal is not to get people to go to church, so they are essentially working against the "you tell 'em who Jesus is, pastor" model. Second, if *all* of their material simply pictures Jesus a nice guy who understands us and promoted peace and love, what about that description would drive people to a church or conversation with a pastor to hear the gospel? What makes Jesus stand out, then, if he is not explicitly the Son of God? Why would I care that he understands me? If he is just a guy in history, his understanding or lack thereof is meaningless to me. Third, much of their depiction of Jesus will work *against* what the proverbial pastor will try to communicate regarding who Jesus really is - as Crain notes, the campaign feeds and echos pop culture ideas of Jesus rather than contradicting them.
I will grant this: the first rule of advertising is to be memorable (or create buzz/visibility). The saying has been heard that any publicity is good publicity. There is a reason that McDonalds doesn't care how much I hate their jingle as long as it sticks in my head. I don't love that philosophy for the church, but to that extent, this campaign may have some success despite its weaknesses/faults. Some people may become curious and God may use that to draw them to himself. I don't think that excuses the weaknesses/faults.
"I do know that my brother, who is in their target audience of religiously skeptic, appreciated the ads and wants to know more."
Nate, for that I praise God. In the end, God can and will use even our most flawed efforts for his ends. May it be that God wills to draw your brother near such that he may move from skeptic to adopted son.
I like this reflection, Rob. I have to face this regularly in my professional work, and recently in a fairly acute manner. As the Holy Spirit has worked sanctification in my heart and life, I have gotten steadily better at not reacting. There is a time and place to defend oneself in words and actions, but allowing oneself to be insulted without any response is often the most beneficial path. As I have become more practiced at remaining silent, I have found that God often will provide for my vindication himself - and sometime not, and that's ok too.
Hi Rob. Lots of good stuff there, and an evergreen warning. I think the challenge is severalfold:
Defining luxury or riches. As a sliding scale, it's hard to pin down. You talk about "expensive foods". Is McDonald's expensive? Well, yes, much more expensive than eating a simple sandwich at home. What defines a "luxury" car? The poles are plain, but the in-between ground is hard to pin down. In the Reformed tradition we have typically rejected asceticism. But anything beyond asceticism could be potentially described as luxury. Can't any vacation or hobby really be described at some level as a luxury?
Applying this to ourselves mainly, and not projecting on others. The easy tendency is to dismiss our own choices and look over at the richer person and judge their choices. This is likely true of all sin - we prefer not to judge ourselves against the perfect God-man, but rather in comparison to our (we think) more sinful neighbor.
In light of these challenges, I think it best that we speak more about the condition of our hearts, where we find our comfort and security, and whether we practice hospitality and generosity rather than seeking to parse the morality of any particular item like an $800 guitar. I shoot an $800 shotgun when I hunt ducks. Could I have a $350 shotgun? Certainly. But I don't, for a number of reasons that could be examined. Do I think that is sinful? Not at all. In contrast, if I brought you to my home and showed off my extensive collection of never-used expensive guns, expressing my pride and security that I find in that collection (while also demonstrating a lack of care or generosity for those in need), I think I would be giving evidence of the sort of opulence and luxury condemned in Scripture. In the end, it is likely that we are all doing some level of self-justification for our choices, as that is indeed the nature of our sinful hearts. May God grant us the will and wisdom examine our hearts and choices regularly.
Thanks for engaging. I can't speak for "you all" about guns, but I can speak a bit about my guns and hunting. I'd be interested to know if you are a vegan. If not, I might echo you and wonder aloud just what the chicken, pig, or cow ever did to you for you to have them killed and used for your benefit. Are you uncomfortable with me killing to eat but comfortable with yourself killing by proxy? In reality, I don't think that is the right question at all. I would never posit that a duck, goose, or deer has done anything to me, but I will assert that they have done something for me. They have provided me and my family with sustenance.
And along the way I have done what is good for my soul: I have entered into nature, felt the harsh elements, immersed myself in the sights, sounds, and smells of creation, praised God for his glory displayed in the Marsh Wren, Sandhill Crane, Burr Oak, and the mosquito, and have respectfully pursued for harvest the birds and animals that God has indeed given to us for food. Now, this pursuit (with gun or bow) will not be for everyone, and I would not try to talk you into hunting. But neither is weightlifting, tatting, watching movies, baking, gardening, playing basketball, quilting, etc. meant for everyone. We gravitate toward the pursuits that are healthy and fulfilling for us.
I have several guns for several reasons. The gun one uses for duck hunting is the not the same gun one uses for antelope, which is also not the same gun one uses for rabbits, which is also not the same gun one uses for target shooting, etc. Different guns for different purposes. I have no concerns or thoughts about Armageddon. My guns serve a utilitarian purpose.
I don't carry a gun to church, but I also don't begrudge those who do. I've never judged someone by their watch, but I would offer that under the discussion offered by Rob, a reasonably priced gun for personal protection is more morally defensible than a luxurious watch.
Hopefully this reply sheds a bit of light on a topic perhaps not matching your interests. Thanks again for engaging.
Posted in: Crucial Conversations at Synod, Part II
Hi Justin,
Thanks for continuing the conversation. For some reason I see no reply from you to Lloyd, so I don't have the benefit of reading and understanding that reply. I think you are making a bit of leap in your comparisons. Synod is not akin to a basketball team or a private family matter. All private confidential matters handled at Synod are in fact done in strict executive session. Everything else concerns our common life together. I disagree that our deliberations at Synod are akin to my serious concern about my spouse or a close personal friend. Those are apples and oranges. So I disagree with you that I should feel bad for speaking openly at Synod on matters that concern the corporate body. You seem to be implying that at Synod we mainly speak about persons. But we don't - in fact it is dissuaded and in some cases we are instructed to approach the President of Synod before ever mentioning a name.
I will stand behind my critique of your quotes, including how you characterized the business or atmosphere of Synod. I think it was wrong and unhelpful of you to accuse the Synod delegates of universally ("each") pleading the cause to their constituents back home instead of being deliberative. I think it was wrong and unhelpful for you to say that the last two years of Synod have borne more similarity to congress than to biblical leadership. I disagree with those assessments and find them unhelpful and distracting to your points where I do find common cause.
As to your concluding questions:
1) I'll assume by "goal" you mean the goal of synodical deliberations. But here I reject your framing. Nothing has to do with who I do or do not "disagree with". That makes things personal to me, and my opinions are not the point. The doctrine of the Word as agreed upon by the church is the point. Also, you present a false choice. Discipline (which unfortunately we are having to speak of regularly at Synod these days) is about both correcting and (when necessary) pruning (C.O. Article 78). The pruning depends on whether or not the correction is heeded. Currently we are seeing a significant lack of heeding correction, which is not encouraging.
2) Leading up to Synod 2022 many churches and classes pleaded passionately with GRE and Neland Ave to turn from their error. I would want this personal and heartfelt pleading. Synod 2022 formed a committee to walk alongside Neland and GRE and guide them. I would want this personal and wise counsel. Synod 2023 took up (but failed to pass) a recommendation for further guidance for Neland and GRE. I would want this further guidance. In fact, when I testified about the HSR on the floor of synod in 2022 my approach and appeal was that the HSR was written for me, that it first speaks to my sin and my temptations, and that I need a church that is willing to hold me to account, to correct me when I am straying. This was my plea and it was an honest plea. I can't imagine feeling loved by a church that would withhold correction from me.
3) We have applied some of the above in (and outside of) Synod, but as noted Synod 2023 failed to faithfully continue in the oversight and correction started in 2022. I think that was not to Synod 2023's credit, and that needs to be remedied. When I was at Synod as a delegate and observer in 2022 and 2023 what I saw was a body agonizing over hard decisions. I saw no callousness, no cruelty, not harshness. I saw gentleness and continued expressions of love. Perfect love? No, that we have yet to exhibit or observe on this side of eternity.
Thanks again for the conversation. These are matters that are worth discussing.
Posted in: Crucial Conversations at Synod, Part II
Hi Justin,
Once again, I don't accept the framing of your question. First, I note that you again pose a false choice. Second, the phraseology of "be right" is unhelpful. I would offer that what I am much of the church are striving for is faithfulness, not a sense or idea of being right. And faithfulness need not be pitted against success as you do in your question. If we are faithful we will achieve exactly as much success as God desires for us, and that "success" may not look like what we desire or envision.
Certainly all of our decisions impact people, that is unavoidable. But that does not mean that in our deliberations we are talking about (specific, individual) people, except on very rare occasions. I think perhaps you overvalue the "step up" from a body of nearly 200 people to that same body with a gallery and cameras. For most elders and deacons, unpracticed as many of us are at public speaking, 200 people could just as well be 2000 people. The gallery and cameras don't up the ante that much. It's not as if 200 people is an intimate group where one feels the safety of privacy. To that degree I don't think privatizing Synod would have much of an effect.
As for further communication, I would counter-propose a both/and. I think a purpose of the Network is to hear each other and discuss publicly for the benefit of the broader group. I am perhaps more reluctant to pull back from public conversation. Having said that I would be only too glad to make your acquaintance more personally if you would find that helpful. I can be reached at [email protected]. Thanks for the conversation thus far.
Eric
Posted in: Crucial Conversations at Synod, Part II
Hi Doug,
You can count me as one who is glad that you offered your thoughts despite hesitation. I certainly don’t have all the answers, but I think that the church we are a part of does have answers to a lot of your questions below. I would challenge your framing assertion that the decision of Synod 2022 “was motivated more by a desire to reduce the anxiety in the church than to more effectively minister to members of the LBGTQ community.” As a delegate to Synod 2022 I can confirm that there was a level of anxiety involved in the decision making, but the anxiety was precisely because of the significant ramifications for effective ministry. It was a decision bathed in prayer and motivated by love for God and neighbor.
As to your 3 main points, I would offer a few thoughts.
1. I think you do have a misunderstanding of the mandate that resulted in the HSR. The committee was not told not to re-examine Scripture on the issue of homosexuality. On the contrary, the committee was to prepare a report with “Discussion outlining how a Reformed hermeneutic does or does not comport with readings of Scripture being employed to endorse what are, for the historic church, ground-breaking conclusions regarding human sexual behavior and identification.” Beyond examining Scripture to evaluate our teaching in light of new readings of Scripture the committee was also told to interact with “arguments about a new movement of the Spirit (e.g., Acts 15), as well as conclusions arising from scientific and social scientific studies.” I don’t believe one can accurately characterize that as clearly avoiding re-examining Biblical teaching. We had that macro conversation, it just concluded in a manner or with a conclusion that is not to the liking of some. Seeing through a glass dimly does not mean we cannot know truth – if that was the case we would have nothing upon which to base our faith.
“Any expectations we might have about the "unchastity" of homosexuals needs to be applied to the unchastity of heterosexuals who use pornography.” Yes, and amen, and so concluded the HSR and Synod. You can be entirely sure that when churches know of commitment to and engagement with pornography, they are addressing it as a matter of unchastity. You can be entirely sure that if a movement arose to codify the acceptance and normalization of pornography, the CRC would react by reiterating the teaching of Scripture and emphasizing our understanding of all unchastity being prohibited in the seventh commandment as explained in the catechism. Indeed all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God, but Paul explains further in I Corinthians that “such were some of you” and our lives are not to be defined by those patterns of sin any longer. Yes, total depravity is real and affects us all, but thanks be to God he does not leave us in slavery to sin. The homosexual sinner is no worse than the heterosexual sinner, but the remedy for both is repentance, reconciliation, and a life of sanctified growth. I don’t know of any reading of Romans 1 wherein one could conclude that Paul was not condemning sexual immorality. The passage (and its broader context) can (and does) carry more meaning than that, but it inescapably includes that.
2. If you look again at the HSR you will see that each section (pornography, homosexuality, etc.) contains a whole introduction dedicated to examining the topic in light of the cultural context. The HSR is actually soaked in the sort of cultural conversation that you say we have not had. All of the questions you ask following under your second point have been discussed and answered in the HSR and the concluding discussions/decisions of Synod 2022 and 2023.
“Why are we asking homosexuals to practice celibacy (a spiritual gift, according to the Scripture, one which not every one has) while never asking the same sacrifice of hetrosexual members?” First, “we” aren’t asking anything, God is. It is God’s Word that instructs and we follow. Second, it is the teaching of the church based on God’s Word that heterosexual members are called to the same celibacy when living outside of marriage. We teach that, we preach that, we disciple to that, and we attempt to practice that. The ask is the same, though there is no doubt that the challenges are not parallel.
3. As a confessional church we have for our history been quite explicit about what beliefs are necessary for leadership in the CRC. We have always been a church requiring confessional subscription for office bearers. That is not new or in question. A “commitment to Jesus” demands to know just who this Jesus is and what he has done for us. These questions and many more naturally follow, and are worked out in our creeds and confessions. One does not (should not) end up an office bearer in the CRC without knowledge of and accedence to these statements of belief, including the entirety of the Canons. If someone is an office bearer in the CRC without this knowledge or fealty then they have borne false witness in signing the Covenant for Officebearers.
The moral standards that we seek to live by and hold each other accountable to are the standards of God’s moral law. We are not left to flounder or wonder in this area. God in his grace has established for us what a holy and upright life looks like. Like the great apostle Paul we confess our inability to live to this standard perfectly. So, the person addicted to pornography cannot go on sinning with impunity, but must strive to bring their desires and habits in line with God’s holy will. So long as they strive in this way they can be members in good standing. Should they insist that they need not strive, they ought to be corrected by their brothers and sisters. This is the Biblical pattern and the moral imperative of our life together in the church. It’s the only kind of church that I want to be a member of: a church that loves me enough to hold me accountable and correct me when I need correction.
I would suggest to you that we have had each of those macro conversations. These questions are not new and have been wrestled with for generations. May God grant that we demonstrate the willingness to submit ourselves to the authority, judgement, and government of the church on these and other matters as we each have committed as members and also again for those of us as office bearers.
Eric
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.
Posted in: Congregational Feedback: Surveys vs. Listening Circles
Hi Sean,
You have offered some very good thoughts and warnings about the limitations and trappings of surveys as a method of listening. Much of it resonates with my experience and observation.
I wonder, have you shared this perspective within the CRC denominational organization? Denominational Survey | Christian Reformed Church (crcna.org)
The linked page says that the denomination uses the survey to "listen". I wonder just how much some of the separation and struggle in the CRC would be different if "the denomination" (read: bureaucratic structure) listened more in person at the congregational and classical level and less from offices in Grand Rapids. And yes, diasporic churches would likely also view some of those bureaucratic figures differently as well if allowed interaction that was not mediated through reports, magazines, editorials, and the like.
Posted in: Where Did You Worship This Past Sunday?
First CRC of Prinsburg, MN
Posted in: 'He Gets Us' Super Bowl Commercials - What Did You Think?
Hi Staci,
I don't watch the Super Bowl, so I did not see those particular ads. I have seen their campaign more broadly. Though I share your struggle with the immense sum of money spent on two ads, I have more concern about the campaign in general. I think Natasha Crain's critique hits home on a number of important points. In the end, any Jesus who is not explicitly the Son of God is an empty Jesus.
7 Problems with the He Gets Us Campaign | Natasha Crain
Posted in: 'He Gets Us' Super Bowl Commercials - What Did You Think?
Hi Nate,
Thanks for engaging. Did Crain not quote the president of the marketing agency behind the ad campaign as saying “Ultimately, the goal is inspiration, not recruitment or conversion.” And she rightly points it a number of times that the "inspirational" Jesus that they point to is not the God-man Savior, but a nice guy who gets us. It seems like she is not making assumptions about the goal, but responding to a stated goal.
The problem with McKendry's reply above is several-fold. First, they specifically say in their FAQ that the goal is not to get people to go to church, so they are essentially working against the "you tell 'em who Jesus is, pastor" model. Second, if *all* of their material simply pictures Jesus a nice guy who understands us and promoted peace and love, what about that description would drive people to a church or conversation with a pastor to hear the gospel? What makes Jesus stand out, then, if he is not explicitly the Son of God? Why would I care that he understands me? If he is just a guy in history, his understanding or lack thereof is meaningless to me. Third, much of their depiction of Jesus will work *against* what the proverbial pastor will try to communicate regarding who Jesus really is - as Crain notes, the campaign feeds and echos pop culture ideas of Jesus rather than contradicting them.
I will grant this: the first rule of advertising is to be memorable (or create buzz/visibility). The saying has been heard that any publicity is good publicity. There is a reason that McDonalds doesn't care how much I hate their jingle as long as it sticks in my head. I don't love that philosophy for the church, but to that extent, this campaign may have some success despite its weaknesses/faults. Some people may become curious and God may use that to draw them to himself. I don't think that excuses the weaknesses/faults.
Posted in: 'He Gets Us' Super Bowl Commercials - What Did You Think?
"I do know that my brother, who is in their target audience of religiously skeptic, appreciated the ads and wants to know more."
Nate, for that I praise God. In the end, God can and will use even our most flawed efforts for his ends. May it be that God wills to draw your brother near such that he may move from skeptic to adopted son.
Posted in: Blessings and Accusations
I like this reflection, Rob. I have to face this regularly in my professional work, and recently in a fairly acute manner. As the Holy Spirit has worked sanctification in my heart and life, I have gotten steadily better at not reacting. There is a time and place to defend oneself in words and actions, but allowing oneself to be insulted without any response is often the most beneficial path. As I have become more practiced at remaining silent, I have found that God often will provide for my vindication himself - and sometime not, and that's ok too.
Posted in: Christians Clothed in Babylonian Silk
Hi Rob. Lots of good stuff there, and an evergreen warning. I think the challenge is severalfold:
In light of these challenges, I think it best that we speak more about the condition of our hearts, where we find our comfort and security, and whether we practice hospitality and generosity rather than seeking to parse the morality of any particular item like an $800 guitar. I shoot an $800 shotgun when I hunt ducks. Could I have a $350 shotgun? Certainly. But I don't, for a number of reasons that could be examined. Do I think that is sinful? Not at all. In contrast, if I brought you to my home and showed off my extensive collection of never-used expensive guns, expressing my pride and security that I find in that collection (while also demonstrating a lack of care or generosity for those in need), I think I would be giving evidence of the sort of opulence and luxury condemned in Scripture. In the end, it is likely that we are all doing some level of self-justification for our choices, as that is indeed the nature of our sinful hearts. May God grant us the will and wisdom examine our hearts and choices regularly.
Posted in: Christians Clothed in Babylonian Silk
Hi Hetty,
Thanks for engaging. I can't speak for "you all" about guns, but I can speak a bit about my guns and hunting. I'd be interested to know if you are a vegan. If not, I might echo you and wonder aloud just what the chicken, pig, or cow ever did to you for you to have them killed and used for your benefit. Are you uncomfortable with me killing to eat but comfortable with yourself killing by proxy? In reality, I don't think that is the right question at all. I would never posit that a duck, goose, or deer has done anything to me, but I will assert that they have done something for me. They have provided me and my family with sustenance.
And along the way I have done what is good for my soul: I have entered into nature, felt the harsh elements, immersed myself in the sights, sounds, and smells of creation, praised God for his glory displayed in the Marsh Wren, Sandhill Crane, Burr Oak, and the mosquito, and have respectfully pursued for harvest the birds and animals that God has indeed given to us for food. Now, this pursuit (with gun or bow) will not be for everyone, and I would not try to talk you into hunting. But neither is weightlifting, tatting, watching movies, baking, gardening, playing basketball, quilting, etc. meant for everyone. We gravitate toward the pursuits that are healthy and fulfilling for us.
I have several guns for several reasons. The gun one uses for duck hunting is the not the same gun one uses for antelope, which is also not the same gun one uses for rabbits, which is also not the same gun one uses for target shooting, etc. Different guns for different purposes. I have no concerns or thoughts about Armageddon. My guns serve a utilitarian purpose.
I don't carry a gun to church, but I also don't begrudge those who do. I've never judged someone by their watch, but I would offer that under the discussion offered by Rob, a reasonably priced gun for personal protection is more morally defensible than a luxurious watch.
Hopefully this reply sheds a bit of light on a topic perhaps not matching your interests. Thanks again for engaging.
Eric