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.
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.
Thanks for the response. You may be thinking of someone else as a fellow chaplain, as I am but a layperson, an elder in season but currently out of season. I serve in Classis Minnkota.
When you say "the issue has clearly not been resolved" it makes me wonder what signs you would look for to determine that it has been resolved. If by "resolved" you mean something resembling unanimity, I suspect we will not arrive at that. It seems to me that the existence of disagreement does not render a matter unresolved. Synod did seek and find resolution of the doctrinal questions that had arisen. Now Synod is continuing the work of seeing that our doctrinal understanding (not changed, but consistent with our entire history) means something in the life of the church.
As to submission, it has to have meaning. If submission can mean that you publicly disagree with, disparage, and call into question the validity of the decision of a body, then it may not have much meaning at all. You and I both (as office bearers) vowed to promote and defend the doctrine of the church. If you are doing so in this instance, it is not clear to me how you are doing so. That's not judgmentalism, that's just taking words to mean things. I'm not accusing you of sin, I'm simply speaking of the commitments that we make of our own volition. Our oaths and vows before the Lord are heavy matters, not to be taken lightly or tossed aside easily. Submission is easy when we agree but is tested when we disagree. Is submission at all meaningful if it only comes into play when we agree and then is discarded when disagreement arises? How is there honor and integrity in that approach?
You seem to almost speak as if something was done to you by the denomination, but it is you who have changed (unless you always accepted the chastity of homosexual sex), not the denomination. WICO is not confessional because it is not in the confessions. Adultery and our understanding of chastity/unchastity very much is in our confession. If the words of the confessions have no meaning, then what is the purpose of a confession? It is not the historically orthodox in the CRC who have sought to redefine a word in the confession. There has never been a time in the history of the CRC when homosexual sex could be defined as chaste. Recognizing that is not an invention or something foisted unfairly on office bearers heretofore uninformed of that reality.
You appeal to abuse of authority and seem to accuse the Synods of 2022 and 2023 of abuse of power/authority. On what standard do you base that? What is abusive about interpreting and applying the plain language of our confessions? Again, it is not the church that has shifted, but those who no longer agree with the longstanding doctrine of the church. The Covenant for Officebearers (or the former Form of Subscription) is a defining feature of our covenantal life together - it's not novel. It seems plain that for those who refuse to give the submission that they once vowed they are making evident that they don't desire to exist in covenant any longer. That is a painful, if inescapable, conclusion it seems to me.
I wholeheartedly agree with you when you pose this relevant and important question: “Where do we need to tear down the walls of "the Fort," walls of tradition that inhibit our effectiveness in reaching out to others, and where must we keep and even strengthen the walls because they define who we are.” I frankly don’t think there is ever a time when this question is not relevant – we will/should have this question in the foreground in all of our work/walk. I think this is our apostolic/Berean/Protestant mantle to carry. To this degree I think you have demonstrated that while we may have differing cultural backgrounds we indeed have much in common.
I don’t necessarily disagree with your general sketch of the culture or ethos of rural CRC-dom, and can confirm that the majority of my faith formation occurred in this milieu. What I would push back against is any insinuation or implication that this desire to preserve tradition and skepticism of change is the defining or determining feature of how a classis such as Classis Minnkota comes to hold the positions that it does vis-à-vis sexuality and the proper response of the church to cultural and (in some cases) ecclesiastical changes. I have been in the belly of the beast, as it were, for most of my adult life as it relates to wrestling with questions of doctrine and life in the church. What I have observed in the rural settings where this wrestling has occurred is not some bland sentimentality, but a concerted (though imperfect) desire and attempt to “Hate what is evil; cling to what is good” (Romans 12:9). The Bible has much to recommend regarding the base impulse to preserve the teaching (tradition) of the church and view novel doctrine with suspicion. To be sure, this impulse can be misused or misguided, but at its core it is a fundamentally biblical impulse that I am glad to have had handed down to me.
In the end I am blessed that God has called me to a family of believers, because by myself I am prone to unbalanced notions of what I must tear down and what I must keep and strengthen. To that extent I think the CRC has been engaging in the exact type of wrestling that you recommend and has done so under her agreed upon process and with her agreed upon authority and boundaries.
It is not for me to define the walls of the tent. It is interesting to me that you reference Isaiah 54 in this conversation, because this is one in the many passages in Scripture that uses the metaphor of husband and wife to depict the relationship between God and his people, as Paul explicates in no uncertain terms for us in Ephesians 5. I think this highlights that God’s designs are not neutral or malleable for us – they have lasting and significant weight and meaning beyond the physical and into the spiritual.
The tent metaphor in this passage is not being used by Isaiah to encourage the Israelites to somehow change the teaching/doctrine/law to draw a wider boundary, but rather to prepare themselves to experience God’s blessing. Israel is compared to a barren woman who has experienced shame and a lack of bounty/blessing – that is why the tent is small, and it was due to their disobedience. God is reminding Israel of his enduring promises to Abraham to make him a blessing to all nations and to make his descendants innumerable. Ironically, it was Israel’s unauthorized “widening” of the tent to take on the practices and habits of the pagan nations around them (notably in the sexual realm) that had brought God’s judgment on them in the first place. Rebellion against God is not the type of tent-widening being referenced in Isaiah 54, but rather God’s providential and sovereign blessing on his people. The post-apostolic church is a dramatic realization of this tent-widening promise made by God.
Is the CRC tent big enough for both of us? Yes! But the CRC’s tent walls are not ours to define – they have been defined by the church together in light of God’s Word. It’s not about what Eric thinks or what Doug thinks. If we place ourselves outside of the tent walls we cannot then look back at the church and decry the church for her lack of inclusivity – it is we who have excluded ourselves. It is my heartfelt desire to dwell with you within these walls, for these are walls of protection and blessing.
I am thankful for your willingness and desire to think and reason together. May God bless you and keep you.
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: 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?
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: 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: 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 Doug,
Thanks for the response. You may be thinking of someone else as a fellow chaplain, as I am but a layperson, an elder in season but currently out of season. I serve in Classis Minnkota.
When you say "the issue has clearly not been resolved" it makes me wonder what signs you would look for to determine that it has been resolved. If by "resolved" you mean something resembling unanimity, I suspect we will not arrive at that. It seems to me that the existence of disagreement does not render a matter unresolved. Synod did seek and find resolution of the doctrinal questions that had arisen. Now Synod is continuing the work of seeing that our doctrinal understanding (not changed, but consistent with our entire history) means something in the life of the church.
As to submission, it has to have meaning. If submission can mean that you publicly disagree with, disparage, and call into question the validity of the decision of a body, then it may not have much meaning at all. You and I both (as office bearers) vowed to promote and defend the doctrine of the church. If you are doing so in this instance, it is not clear to me how you are doing so. That's not judgmentalism, that's just taking words to mean things. I'm not accusing you of sin, I'm simply speaking of the commitments that we make of our own volition. Our oaths and vows before the Lord are heavy matters, not to be taken lightly or tossed aside easily. Submission is easy when we agree but is tested when we disagree. Is submission at all meaningful if it only comes into play when we agree and then is discarded when disagreement arises? How is there honor and integrity in that approach?
You seem to almost speak as if something was done to you by the denomination, but it is you who have changed (unless you always accepted the chastity of homosexual sex), not the denomination. WICO is not confessional because it is not in the confessions. Adultery and our understanding of chastity/unchastity very much is in our confession. If the words of the confessions have no meaning, then what is the purpose of a confession? It is not the historically orthodox in the CRC who have sought to redefine a word in the confession. There has never been a time in the history of the CRC when homosexual sex could be defined as chaste. Recognizing that is not an invention or something foisted unfairly on office bearers heretofore uninformed of that reality.
You appeal to abuse of authority and seem to accuse the Synods of 2022 and 2023 of abuse of power/authority. On what standard do you base that? What is abusive about interpreting and applying the plain language of our confessions? Again, it is not the church that has shifted, but those who no longer agree with the longstanding doctrine of the church. The Covenant for Officebearers (or the former Form of Subscription) is a defining feature of our covenantal life together - it's not novel. It seems plain that for those who refuse to give the submission that they once vowed they are making evident that they don't desire to exist in covenant any longer. That is a painful, if inescapable, conclusion it seems to me.
Thanks again for interacting.
Eric
Posted in: Crucial Conversations at Synod, Part II
Hi Doug,
I wholeheartedly agree with you when you pose this relevant and important question: “Where do we need to tear down the walls of "the Fort," walls of tradition that inhibit our effectiveness in reaching out to others, and where must we keep and even strengthen the walls because they define who we are.” I frankly don’t think there is ever a time when this question is not relevant – we will/should have this question in the foreground in all of our work/walk. I think this is our apostolic/Berean/Protestant mantle to carry. To this degree I think you have demonstrated that while we may have differing cultural backgrounds we indeed have much in common.
I don’t necessarily disagree with your general sketch of the culture or ethos of rural CRC-dom, and can confirm that the majority of my faith formation occurred in this milieu. What I would push back against is any insinuation or implication that this desire to preserve tradition and skepticism of change is the defining or determining feature of how a classis such as Classis Minnkota comes to hold the positions that it does vis-à-vis sexuality and the proper response of the church to cultural and (in some cases) ecclesiastical changes. I have been in the belly of the beast, as it were, for most of my adult life as it relates to wrestling with questions of doctrine and life in the church. What I have observed in the rural settings where this wrestling has occurred is not some bland sentimentality, but a concerted (though imperfect) desire and attempt to “Hate what is evil; cling to what is good” (Romans 12:9). The Bible has much to recommend regarding the base impulse to preserve the teaching (tradition) of the church and view novel doctrine with suspicion. To be sure, this impulse can be misused or misguided, but at its core it is a fundamentally biblical impulse that I am glad to have had handed down to me.
In the end I am blessed that God has called me to a family of believers, because by myself I am prone to unbalanced notions of what I must tear down and what I must keep and strengthen. To that extent I think the CRC has been engaging in the exact type of wrestling that you recommend and has done so under her agreed upon process and with her agreed upon authority and boundaries.
It is not for me to define the walls of the tent. It is interesting to me that you reference Isaiah 54 in this conversation, because this is one in the many passages in Scripture that uses the metaphor of husband and wife to depict the relationship between God and his people, as Paul explicates in no uncertain terms for us in Ephesians 5. I think this highlights that God’s designs are not neutral or malleable for us – they have lasting and significant weight and meaning beyond the physical and into the spiritual.
The tent metaphor in this passage is not being used by Isaiah to encourage the Israelites to somehow change the teaching/doctrine/law to draw a wider boundary, but rather to prepare themselves to experience God’s blessing. Israel is compared to a barren woman who has experienced shame and a lack of bounty/blessing – that is why the tent is small, and it was due to their disobedience. God is reminding Israel of his enduring promises to Abraham to make him a blessing to all nations and to make his descendants innumerable. Ironically, it was Israel’s unauthorized “widening” of the tent to take on the practices and habits of the pagan nations around them (notably in the sexual realm) that had brought God’s judgment on them in the first place. Rebellion against God is not the type of tent-widening being referenced in Isaiah 54, but rather God’s providential and sovereign blessing on his people. The post-apostolic church is a dramatic realization of this tent-widening promise made by God.
Is the CRC tent big enough for both of us? Yes! But the CRC’s tent walls are not ours to define – they have been defined by the church together in light of God’s Word. It’s not about what Eric thinks or what Doug thinks. If we place ourselves outside of the tent walls we cannot then look back at the church and decry the church for her lack of inclusivity – it is we who have excluded ourselves. It is my heartfelt desire to dwell with you within these walls, for these are walls of protection and blessing.
I am thankful for your willingness and desire to think and reason together. May God bless you and keep you.
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.