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 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.
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 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.
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.
Certainly, Rob. I agree wholeheartedly that the Church ought to regularly exhort in this arena, particularly in the N.A. context where luxury abounds and independence/hoarding/selfishness are cultural touchstones. What will be helpful for us, I think, is when the church leans hard on the principle and leaves the application to the hearer. We tend to get into trouble when we err in either over-specificity in application or under-emphasis on the principle. So, the pastor who never works in a plea/call for sacrificial living and rejection of selfish opulence is erring, just as is the pastor who feels it necessary to impugn any congregational members with a lake cabin or more than one car. Thanks for stimulating us to reflect on these things and the seriousness of the call for us to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Christ.
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: 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 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: '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: 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
Posted in: Christians Clothed in Babylonian Silk
Certainly, Rob. I agree wholeheartedly that the Church ought to regularly exhort in this arena, particularly in the N.A. context where luxury abounds and independence/hoarding/selfishness are cultural touchstones. What will be helpful for us, I think, is when the church leans hard on the principle and leaves the application to the hearer. We tend to get into trouble when we err in either over-specificity in application or under-emphasis on the principle. So, the pastor who never works in a plea/call for sacrificial living and rejection of selfish opulence is erring, just as is the pastor who feels it necessary to impugn any congregational members with a lake cabin or more than one car. Thanks for stimulating us to reflect on these things and the seriousness of the call for us to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Christ.
Posted in: Christians Clothed in Babylonian Silk
Next time you find yourself in the position to pour out expensive perfume on the King of Kings, you take that chance, Dan! ;)