I will add that Pastor Aaron Vriesman also wrote a while ago on this question in The Banner. I have yet to see anyone write a compelling counterpoint to Pastor Aaron's observations regarding the logical conclusions of the opposing views and their absolute incompatibility.
I did read that article and found it helpful. As a delegate to Synod 2022 I felt a lot of what Brandon expressed in this article. What I found at Synod was a lot of very loving people striving to serve God. That includes a number of people I disagree significantly with. That did not stop me from interacting with them, breaking bread with them, or appreciating them. In the end, we had work to do and decisions to make, but making enemies was not on the agenda. I was saddened in the aftermath of Synod 2022 to see so much name-calling, assigning of motives, and impugning. Lots of things were said about people that simply were not true. We will do best as a church if we determine to contest ideas, not people. I appreciate Brandon's call for extending grace to those who will serve as delegates. At the very least we ought to take seriously the words of Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 112:
Question: What is the aim of the ninth commandment?
Answer: That I never give false testimony against anyone, twist no one’s words, not gossip or slander, nor join in condemning anyone rashly or without a hearing. Rather, in court and everywhere else, I should avoid lying and deceit of every kind; these are the very devices the devil uses, and they would call down on me God’s intense wrath. I should love the truth, speak it candidly, and openly acknowledge it. And I should do what I can to guard and advance my neighbor’s good name. (Empasis added)
It seems to me that Brandon is echoing the idea of guarding and advancing our neighbor's good name - a great reminder.
I'm really not much of a podcast listener, but I will put in a plug for two (the only two I've listened to with any regularity) CRC-centric podcasts, Reformed Podmatics and The Messy Reformation.
Thanks so much for engaging. You are quite right to point out that the term "LGBTQ+ ideology" is somewhat amorphous. I do not intend to state or insinuate that "everyone who claims the label of lesbian, gay, bisexual, etc., must inherently hold to an ideology that supports all the same things and is consistent across the group." People can and do believe and assent to what they chose, and I will not place people in boxes.
But there is a broad, if not entirely consistent or uniform, ideology associated with the modern LGBTQ+ movement, specifically the "rights" or "affirmation" movement. I use ideology here under this definition: "a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture". To be sure, not all members of the LGBTQ+ grouping share in the dominant cultural patterns or manners of thinking, but that does not negate the presence of a dominant ideology. I would say that the dominant ideology includes the ideas of radical autonomy and self-expression as supreme cultural values. The ideology I think can also accurately be said to employ a sexual ethic centered on consent. The ideology is also typified by viewing religious restrictions on sexual behavior and sexual (or gender) expression as inherently oppressive and hateful.
That's admittedly a brief, rough, and rudimentary sketch, but it hopefully sheds a bit more light on what I was intending with that shorthand reference. Thanks again for joining in the conversation - I value your contribution.
You are blessing me with your thoughtful engagement. I share your pain/discomfort with labels and I recognize that there are hazards in labelling or short-handing for brevity. I did try to avoid labelling as much as possible throughout the series. In this instance I was trying to capture that there is a "school of thought" that is apparent both in and out of the church that has implications for the church that reach far beyond SSM. Hopefully this exchange, spurred by your desire to tease that out, has provided some further clarity and less opportunity for offense for anyone reading.
I also agree that seeking to understand each other is pivotal. That is my main purpose in drafting and posting this series. I want to us be open in interacting with each other's ideas and plainly stating our own. May God bless you also.
Thanks for reading and engaging. As noted, I don't take particular joy in reflecting on the realities that I and others see and experience in this area, but I do think we are most loving to/with each other when we speak honestly. Thanks for providing your additional perspective.
Hi Richard. The HSR contains lots of pastoral advice and was commended to the churches by Synod 2022. Each topic in the HSR has a whole section on pastoral care. To be sure there are a lot of unique situations that need to be figured out individually as we go along, but that is the case for all types of pastoral care. There is no plug-and-play for pastoral care. But neither the HSR committee nor Synod 2022 left the church empty-handed.
Synod was never going to be in a position to deliver all that you seek - that is simply not Synod's role, and Synod was already tasked with wading through essentially three years' worth of materials. That Synod did not meet all of our expectations is not license for us to accuse Synod of not actually thinking about pastoral advice and simply saying figure it out later.
Synodical decisions are classified by church order as "settled and binding" not open to disagreement.
Having been at Synod 2022 as a delegate and having had chance to interact significantly there with people of widely varying perspectives, I can say that your belief that Synod was mainly concerned about anxiety in the church is in error. It is better to let people speak for themselves, and you will find no testimony to that effect. Rather, people of all perspectives spoke of their longing for the church to minister in truth, wisdom and grace to all who are struggling.
The question is never if we have "all the answers" but rather whether or not we can understand God's will and act accordingly. To be sure, our efforts to that end will be marred by our sin until Christ returns, but that does not mean we don't strive. Synod 2022 did fall on their collective knees and beg God to help us follow his will. It was likely one of the most prayed-for, prayed-over, and prayed-during Synods that we could imagine. And that prayer continues.
Hi Bob. Thanks for jumping into the conversation. I don't see that the prioritized mission of the CRC has changed, and I don't see that we need to allow disagreement on any number of confessional issues in order to maintain that priority. We can maintain fealty to our confessional standards, including matters both salvific and non-salvific and continue to prioritize gospel ministry - as a matter of fact, for most of the history of the CRC we have managed to do so. What the Third Way proposes takes us away from that historic approach, and in some very monumental ways. How we understand and do ministry together is contained in a lot of these non-salvific areas. To treat these all as negotiable or optional would be to dissemble joint ministry as we know it. As noted in the article, I think we do well to wrestle with those far-reaching ramifications as we think about what this group of pastors is calling us to. I maintain that "the ask" is greater than initially appears.
Thanks so much for continuing the conversation. I appreciate your perspective.
I will tend to agree with you that we are seeing some things differently. Lots of reasons for that possibility, to be sure. I don't agree that the CRC has historically prioritized theological precision over mission. I don't see the two as mutually exclusive, but rather complementary.
You ask when synod last battled over missions, but you see we don't need to battle over that as a priority because we agree on it. We battle about sexuality right now because we disagree about it. Notice how each year at Synod there are lengthy reports from our missions agencies. These are non-controversial. I will not disagree that we can always do better on both formal (institutional) and informal (personal) missions, but I don't think that a lack of controversy at Synod over these matters is indicative of a lack of pursuit.
My experience in the local church is I guess opposite of what you describe, while certainly not perfect. I have spent my whole life in conservative (usually quite associated with desire for theological precision) Reformed churches (mostly CRC, but not my whole life) and have been immersed in mission my whole life. I would never say that I or the churches I have been in have somehow "arrived" or cannot be spurred on to even greater mission desire. But I was always taught in these settings that the theology led to and served the practice. Theology was never for putting on a shelf. The same Jesus that sent us out on mission said that we are to "teach them to observe everything I have commanded" and also said "If you love me you will keep my commandments."
It simply won't do for the church to sideline some of those commandments for the sake of mission. And it simply isn't necessary. We have a path forward to allowing greater time and energy for focusing on mission and less time and energy debating theology of sexuality. Instead of saying "do what you want" perhaps we should do what we commit to do together, and that is to submit to the judgment and authority of the church that we have chosen to associate with.
Beyond that, I think there are central premises of the OP that you are passing by. Do you believe that we can exist in unity under the call for treating non-salvific matters as secondary and open to varying belief and practice? Consider that such an approach could result in churches in the CRC normalizing and promoting pornography, promoting parental abuse, racial hatred, polygamy, slander, rebellion against church government, preaching from non-canonical books as God's Word, and much more. All of these issues and more are "non-salvific" in the same manner as how proponents of a Third Way propose to treat homosexuality. Would these variabilities lead to greater commonality of and focus on gospel mission? I cannot see how that could possibly be true.
Thanks for your additional thoughts and willingness to engage in conversation.
I think your vision is perhaps a bit narrow when you posit that “The problem comes at the denominational level where theological precision has not been unifying but divisive.” On the contrary, theological precision at the denominational level has been a great source of unity, to the point where our confessions are often referred to as the Three Forms of Unity. I am not so willing to quickly throw out that historical unity on account of a troubling theological question.
The Preacher teaches us that “there is nothing new under the sun”. We have dealt with theological challenges before and can also now. I am not at all convinced that we should discard our confessionality over this current challenge.
And here’s the thing: there are currently churches with exactly the makeup and polity that the Third Way proponents are seeking. So why not rather join them than change the CRC from its historic identity? I don’t desire to see anybody leave, but if there are like-minded organizations and one cannot bring oneself to live under the judgment and admonition of the church (as promised) then why not join those with whom you have greater commonality of belief? What are we seeking to preserve and why? Those who are arguing for ongoing confessionality are arguing to maintain what we have, not for the sake of tradition but because we actually and literally believe that the confessions are faithful explications of biblical theology and that these teachings unify us in understanding.
If you have read my next article in this series you will have discovered that I also do not agree that matters of human sexuality ”in the end (eternity) doesn’t matter most” but is part-and-parcel with what matters most. The watching world needs to see us follow Jesus, and Jesus said in order to do that we must deny ourselves and take up our cross as we follow him. What witness will we be to the world if we say what Jesus calls us to is actually not important? Can we say (contra Scripture) that the death of the old man of sin and new birth in Christ is of relative unimportance? I don’t see that we have to “castigate” each other, but we are called to teach, admonish, correct, and train one another in righteousness. In this series I have sought to respect the proponents of a Third Way enough to engage purposefully with their ideas. I have not sought to castigate them, but to honestly wrestle with what they are calling for. This is the hard work of maintaining unity – it has to be fought for. It doesn’t come by accident, and don’t see how the proposal of the Third Way to essentially turn the CRC from a creedal and confessional church to a mainly creedal and non-confessional church will result in unity.
Posted in: Third Way? Meh
I will add that Pastor Aaron Vriesman also wrote a while ago on this question in The Banner. I have yet to see anyone write a compelling counterpoint to Pastor Aaron's observations regarding the logical conclusions of the opposing views and their absolute incompatibility.
LGBTQ-Incompatible Means Gracious Separation is the Church’s Best Option | The Banner
I'll take the opportunity to also link to a series I wrote on The Network that takes a deeper dive into the call for a Third Way.
Introductory post: Thinking About a ‘Third Way’ – Starting With Agreement | CRC Network (crcna.org)
Conclusory post, with links to each previous post in the series: Thinking About a ‘Third Way’ – Conclusion | CRC Network (crcna.org)
Posted in: Give Synod the Benefit of the Doubt
Hi Staci,
I did read that article and found it helpful. As a delegate to Synod 2022 I felt a lot of what Brandon expressed in this article. What I found at Synod was a lot of very loving people striving to serve God. That includes a number of people I disagree significantly with. That did not stop me from interacting with them, breaking bread with them, or appreciating them. In the end, we had work to do and decisions to make, but making enemies was not on the agenda. I was saddened in the aftermath of Synod 2022 to see so much name-calling, assigning of motives, and impugning. Lots of things were said about people that simply were not true. We will do best as a church if we determine to contest ideas, not people. I appreciate Brandon's call for extending grace to those who will serve as delegates. At the very least we ought to take seriously the words of Heidelberg Catechism Q&A 112:
Question: What is the aim of the ninth commandment?
Answer: That I never give false testimony against anyone, twist no one’s words, not gossip or slander, nor join in condemning anyone rashly or without a hearing. Rather, in court and everywhere else, I should avoid lying and deceit of every kind; these are the very devices the devil uses, and they would call down on me God’s intense wrath. I should love the truth, speak it candidly, and openly acknowledge it. And I should do what I can to guard and advance my neighbor’s good name. (Empasis added)
It seems to me that Brandon is echoing the idea of guarding and advancing our neighbor's good name - a great reminder.
Posted in: Let's Talk Podcasts! What Are Your Favorites?
I'm really not much of a podcast listener, but I will put in a plug for two (the only two I've listened to with any regularity) CRC-centric podcasts, Reformed Podmatics and The Messy Reformation.
Posted in: Thinking About a ‘Third Way’ – Various and Sundry
Hi Andi,
Thanks so much for engaging. You are quite right to point out that the term "LGBTQ+ ideology" is somewhat amorphous. I do not intend to state or insinuate that "everyone who claims the label of lesbian, gay, bisexual, etc., must inherently hold to an ideology that supports all the same things and is consistent across the group." People can and do believe and assent to what they chose, and I will not place people in boxes.
But there is a broad, if not entirely consistent or uniform, ideology associated with the modern LGBTQ+ movement, specifically the "rights" or "affirmation" movement. I use ideology here under this definition: "a manner or the content of thinking characteristic of an individual, group, or culture". To be sure, not all members of the LGBTQ+ grouping share in the dominant cultural patterns or manners of thinking, but that does not negate the presence of a dominant ideology. I would say that the dominant ideology includes the ideas of radical autonomy and self-expression as supreme cultural values. The ideology I think can also accurately be said to employ a sexual ethic centered on consent. The ideology is also typified by viewing religious restrictions on sexual behavior and sexual (or gender) expression as inherently oppressive and hateful.
That's admittedly a brief, rough, and rudimentary sketch, but it hopefully sheds a bit more light on what I was intending with that shorthand reference. Thanks again for joining in the conversation - I value your contribution.
Posted in: Thinking About a ‘Third Way’ – Various and Sundry
Hi Andi,
You are blessing me with your thoughtful engagement. I share your pain/discomfort with labels and I recognize that there are hazards in labelling or short-handing for brevity. I did try to avoid labelling as much as possible throughout the series. In this instance I was trying to capture that there is a "school of thought" that is apparent both in and out of the church that has implications for the church that reach far beyond SSM. Hopefully this exchange, spurred by your desire to tease that out, has provided some further clarity and less opportunity for offense for anyone reading.
I also agree that seeking to understand each other is pivotal. That is my main purpose in drafting and posting this series. I want to us be open in interacting with each other's ideas and plainly stating our own. May God bless you also.
Posted in: Thinking About a 'Third Way' – Is the CRC Uniquely Qualified to Forge a Middle Path?
Hi Rob,
Thanks for reading and engaging. As noted, I don't take particular joy in reflecting on the realities that I and others see and experience in this area, but I do think we are most loving to/with each other when we speak honestly. Thanks for providing your additional perspective.
Posted in: Peace of Conscience and Unity in the Church: Why I Did What I Did As a Delegate to Synod 2022
Hi Richard. The HSR contains lots of pastoral advice and was commended to the churches by Synod 2022. Each topic in the HSR has a whole section on pastoral care. To be sure there are a lot of unique situations that need to be figured out individually as we go along, but that is the case for all types of pastoral care. There is no plug-and-play for pastoral care. But neither the HSR committee nor Synod 2022 left the church empty-handed.
Posted in: Peace of Conscience and Unity in the Church: Why I Did What I Did As a Delegate to Synod 2022
Synod was never going to be in a position to deliver all that you seek - that is simply not Synod's role, and Synod was already tasked with wading through essentially three years' worth of materials. That Synod did not meet all of our expectations is not license for us to accuse Synod of not actually thinking about pastoral advice and simply saying figure it out later.
Posted in: Peace of Conscience and Unity in the Church: Why I Did What I Did As a Delegate to Synod 2022
Synodical decisions are classified by church order as "settled and binding" not open to disagreement.
Having been at Synod 2022 as a delegate and having had chance to interact significantly there with people of widely varying perspectives, I can say that your belief that Synod was mainly concerned about anxiety in the church is in error. It is better to let people speak for themselves, and you will find no testimony to that effect. Rather, people of all perspectives spoke of their longing for the church to minister in truth, wisdom and grace to all who are struggling.
The question is never if we have "all the answers" but rather whether or not we can understand God's will and act accordingly. To be sure, our efforts to that end will be marred by our sin until Christ returns, but that does not mean we don't strive. Synod 2022 did fall on their collective knees and beg God to help us follow his will. It was likely one of the most prayed-for, prayed-over, and prayed-during Synods that we could imagine. And that prayer continues.
Posted in: Thinking About a 'Third Way' – Are Non-salvific Matters Negotiable?
Hi Bob. Thanks for jumping into the conversation. I don't see that the prioritized mission of the CRC has changed, and I don't see that we need to allow disagreement on any number of confessional issues in order to maintain that priority. We can maintain fealty to our confessional standards, including matters both salvific and non-salvific and continue to prioritize gospel ministry - as a matter of fact, for most of the history of the CRC we have managed to do so. What the Third Way proposes takes us away from that historic approach, and in some very monumental ways. How we understand and do ministry together is contained in a lot of these non-salvific areas. To treat these all as negotiable or optional would be to dissemble joint ministry as we know it. As noted in the article, I think we do well to wrestle with those far-reaching ramifications as we think about what this group of pastors is calling us to. I maintain that "the ask" is greater than initially appears.
Thanks again for your thoughts.
Posted in: Thinking About a 'Third Way' – Are Non-salvific Matters Negotiable?
Hi Bob,
Thanks so much for continuing the conversation. I appreciate your perspective.
I will tend to agree with you that we are seeing some things differently. Lots of reasons for that possibility, to be sure. I don't agree that the CRC has historically prioritized theological precision over mission. I don't see the two as mutually exclusive, but rather complementary.
You ask when synod last battled over missions, but you see we don't need to battle over that as a priority because we agree on it. We battle about sexuality right now because we disagree about it. Notice how each year at Synod there are lengthy reports from our missions agencies. These are non-controversial. I will not disagree that we can always do better on both formal (institutional) and informal (personal) missions, but I don't think that a lack of controversy at Synod over these matters is indicative of a lack of pursuit.
My experience in the local church is I guess opposite of what you describe, while certainly not perfect. I have spent my whole life in conservative (usually quite associated with desire for theological precision) Reformed churches (mostly CRC, but not my whole life) and have been immersed in mission my whole life. I would never say that I or the churches I have been in have somehow "arrived" or cannot be spurred on to even greater mission desire. But I was always taught in these settings that the theology led to and served the practice. Theology was never for putting on a shelf. The same Jesus that sent us out on mission said that we are to "teach them to observe everything I have commanded" and also said "If you love me you will keep my commandments."
It simply won't do for the church to sideline some of those commandments for the sake of mission. And it simply isn't necessary. We have a path forward to allowing greater time and energy for focusing on mission and less time and energy debating theology of sexuality. Instead of saying "do what you want" perhaps we should do what we commit to do together, and that is to submit to the judgment and authority of the church that we have chosen to associate with.
Beyond that, I think there are central premises of the OP that you are passing by. Do you believe that we can exist in unity under the call for treating non-salvific matters as secondary and open to varying belief and practice? Consider that such an approach could result in churches in the CRC normalizing and promoting pornography, promoting parental abuse, racial hatred, polygamy, slander, rebellion against church government, preaching from non-canonical books as God's Word, and much more. All of these issues and more are "non-salvific" in the same manner as how proponents of a Third Way propose to treat homosexuality. Would these variabilities lead to greater commonality of and focus on gospel mission? I cannot see how that could possibly be true.
Posted in: Thinking About a 'Third Way' – Are Non-salvific Matters Negotiable?
Hi Bob,
Thanks for your additional thoughts and willingness to engage in conversation.
I think your vision is perhaps a bit narrow when you posit that “The problem comes at the denominational level where theological precision has not been unifying but divisive.” On the contrary, theological precision at the denominational level has been a great source of unity, to the point where our confessions are often referred to as the Three Forms of Unity. I am not so willing to quickly throw out that historical unity on account of a troubling theological question.
The Preacher teaches us that “there is nothing new under the sun”. We have dealt with theological challenges before and can also now. I am not at all convinced that we should discard our confessionality over this current challenge.
And here’s the thing: there are currently churches with exactly the makeup and polity that the Third Way proponents are seeking. So why not rather join them than change the CRC from its historic identity? I don’t desire to see anybody leave, but if there are like-minded organizations and one cannot bring oneself to live under the judgment and admonition of the church (as promised) then why not join those with whom you have greater commonality of belief? What are we seeking to preserve and why? Those who are arguing for ongoing confessionality are arguing to maintain what we have, not for the sake of tradition but because we actually and literally believe that the confessions are faithful explications of biblical theology and that these teachings unify us in understanding.
If you have read my next article in this series you will have discovered that I also do not agree that matters of human sexuality ”in the end (eternity) doesn’t matter most” but is part-and-parcel with what matters most. The watching world needs to see us follow Jesus, and Jesus said in order to do that we must deny ourselves and take up our cross as we follow him. What witness will we be to the world if we say what Jesus calls us to is actually not important? Can we say (contra Scripture) that the death of the old man of sin and new birth in Christ is of relative unimportance? I don’t see that we have to “castigate” each other, but we are called to teach, admonish, correct, and train one another in righteousness. In this series I have sought to respect the proponents of a Third Way enough to engage purposefully with their ideas. I have not sought to castigate them, but to honestly wrestle with what they are calling for. This is the hard work of maintaining unity – it has to be fought for. It doesn’t come by accident, and don’t see how the proposal of the Third Way to essentially turn the CRC from a creedal and confessional church to a mainly creedal and non-confessional church will result in unity.