Thanks for your engagement. It is indeed a staggering number, one that I'm afraid we've corporately become all too comfortable accepting as reality. I'm not sure what the modern-day equivalent of sackcloth and ashes is, but it seems like your call to repentance is a good start. Thanks for your supportive and encouraging words.
Thanks for opening a conversation. I will try to answer your questions directly and perhaps add a bit of commentary that gets at the broader conversation.
If I may begin by noting a couple things about myself for context. I am heavily Canadian influenced, as my Dad was from Canada (though not a citizen) and much of his family remains there. This led to a lot of Canadian visits and Canadian influence from a young age. As I got older I had additional reasons to visit, with two married siblings settling in Canada and my Mom eventually remarrying a Canadian after the passing of my Dad. Politically I am usually what someone might call conservative, but likely not fitting in a neat box. I did not vote for President Trump and find him in many ways highly objectionable.
With that context, to your questions (beginning with the title question).
"What Does It Mean to Be a Bi-National Denomination When the Rhetoric Between the Two Nations Becomes Bitter?" For me it means first and foremost that we are reminded that the reasons for and base of our historic union is not geographic, political, social, or cultural, but rather spiritual - we have a common confession. In other words, national rivalry does not change or damage our union, because our union was never based on a congenial national relation, but a much deeper spiritual union. In that spirit we can view the passing cares of geo-political machinations with a settled confidence in our mutual commitment to spiritual union.
"Do our American siblings believe the things the current administration has said about the Canadian border? Or who exploits whom in terms of trade?" Of course, I cannot speak to the totality of thinking of American CRC members, so I will offer my own perspective, colored by those I am familiar with in the CRC. Some the answer to that question depends on what statements or policy positions you are thinking of. Regarding trade, many U.S. CRC members will agree to an extent about the thrust of Trump rhetoric regarding certain Canadian protectionist trade practices. Now, all countries seek to protect their own interests - that much is fairly plain. Many U.S. CRC members are involved in agriculture, and it is not a secret that Canada has highly protectionist policies and tariffs for agriculture. In this Trump is not wrong. In true Trump fashion he overstates the matter for effect. It has often been said: Don't take Trump literally but do take him seriously. He's a showman at heart, and he does and says things for dramatic effect - always has and always will. Sometimes this has worked for him, sometimes it has failed. To that degree, his rhetoric on trade with Canada is overheated and not always accurate, though it contains some underlying realities.
As for Trump's rhetoric on the 51st state, most Americans think of that as a joke, and it mostly is. I say "mostly" because here again Trump is exaggerating and being over-the-top, but with intended purpose, and it plays right into certain historic Canadian self-perceptions. Is Trump's style of diplomacy odd and abrasive at times? Most definitely. Is the U.S. going to invade, annex, conquer, or otherwise subsume Canada against their will? Most definitely not. Interestingly enough, though many disapprove of Trump and his sabre-rattling style of international engagement, Trump has not been the cause of international conflict or war. Trump's actual record is surprisingly one of peace. Personally, I have a great love for Canada and do not desire to see Canada degraded or disrespected. I do, however, also realize that the vast majority of daily concerns for Canadians are not Trump-caused, but products of Canada's own political decisions. It is partly for this reason that Canadians are being told by their government that Trump is the cause of what ails them - it distracts from Canada's own internal failures, which are legion.
I recently visited Canada and found myself quite literally under verbal attack in several situations once it was known that I was visiting from America (despite the fact that I am not a Trump voter). It was clear to me that for a certain segment of the population the government and an attendant press have done a good job of re-directing their anger from the ruling liberals to America or Americans, or at least anything related to Trump. Having said that, my Christian, CRC, and family connections in Canada make abundantly clear to me that Canadians are by no means of one mind regarding the seriousness of or damage caused by Trump rhetoric or policy. Many (including CRC members) are not at all looking for sympathy, solidarity, or the like in light of current geo-political happenings.
"Do we share faith without being willing to share worries and concerns?" Not at all. Certainly we seek to bear each others' burdens, rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. But we also must be aware that worries and concerns vary greatly. The CRC recently did put out a pastoral letter recognizing pain, hurt, concern among many Canadians. For some this statement was unnecessary and unhelpfully reactive. For others this statement was far short of adequate. Therein lies some of the challenge of denominational statements that attempt to represent a broad constituency with widely varying political, social, cultural, and economic perspectives. At the congregational level you may be surprised to know how many U.S. churches are praying for healed national relations. These things happen organically and without the sounding of trumpets or the publication of letters.
Thanks for raising these questions, as they make for interesting conversation and opportunity to understand each others' perspectives better.
You ask: "But should I conclude that you think he is basically truthful in his assertions about Canada?" I'd say that I would not go further than my original conclusion, that Trumps rhetoric "contains some underlying realities". Again, to support that general statement I note that Canada indisputably has highly protectionist trade policies regarding agriculture. Whether some of these policies have been negotiated or not, they are undoubtedly protectionist. I neither intend nor desire to parse all of Trump's statements and have gladly stipulated that many of Trump's statements are at best hyperbolic and at worst untrue. I'll let it stand at that.
As to your second paragraph, I'll reply to this idea: "If you mean that our first loyalty is to Jesus Christ and his Kingdom, then Amen." I mean that, but not only that. As a binational denomination we are located in the broader church in more specific and concrete ways that just our unity in Christ. You ask: "Doesn’t it mean something solid to share cultural, historical, creedal and social connections as well as ministries under a denominational umbrella?" Yes, indeed it does, and I would add "confessional" to that list, because it is our common confessions (beyond just our creeds, and much more importantly that cultural, historical, or social connections) that unite us spiritually/theologically. My point is that our national politics do not prevail upon or disrupt that union. We can stand astride our border as essentially meaningless in light of our common confession. None of that denies the challenges currently occurring but rises above those challenges. Many times Canadians misunderstand Americans and Americans misunderstand Canadians. We can live with those misunderstandings, and we can continue in commonality because what unites us is so much more meaningful than anything that might come between us. That is how I view our binational denomination. Thanks for the interaction, and my prayer for your is also for shalom.
This posting raises in me some thoughts/ponderings:
I am thankful that denominational staff have called the church’s attention to this important day of remembrance.
The past number of years have seen the institutional CRC exhibit an “all lives matter” approach and message concerning Sanctity of Human Life Sunday. I find this unhelpful. Sanctity of Human Life Sunday originated specifically to call national attention to the wanton destruction of unborn human life. A day of remembrance, petition, and lament loses some of its effectiveness if it is expanded broadly. Yes, all life matters. But making Sanctity of Human Life Sunday into a catch-all detracts from its original purpose. Adding disability concerns to Sanctity of Human Life Sunday detracts from due attention to the plight of the unborn in the same manner as if we broadened Disability Awareness Sunday to include the value and inclusion of the abled. Consider this: if everything is special, then nothing is special. A birthday is special to a child (in particular) because it is their birthday. To say to your 4-year-old daughter that all of her siblings will be celebrated and given gifts on her birthday because all are special and were born at one time will be to solicit a quizzical or perhaps frustrated and angry response - the child understands this phenomenon.
Perhaps not unrelatedly, the “all lives matter” approach lends tacit approval to the common slander that pro-life Christians only care about children being born and don’t care about them afterward. By pivoting Sanctity of Human Life Sunday to a broad approach one gives credence to the slander in a “the lady dost protest too much, methinks” manner. In other words, the proper response to this slander is to repudiate it, not to dilute the pro-life message of concern for the unborn. The slander that pro-life Christians only care about the unborn for partisan political reasons (wedge issue, culture war) and stop caring after a child is born is simply meant to delegitimize the pro-life message and distract from the horror of what abortion is.
There is language in this prayer that I find unhelpful, even morally deficient. The sentence in question is this sentence: “For the unborn, grant strength, wisdom and compassion to women and men who face hard choices about ending pregnancies.” Suppose we change this sentence up a bit for rhetorical effect so that it reads as follows: “For the children, grant strength, wisdom and compassion to women and men who face hard choices about killing them.” About what other forms of murder would we speak in this manner? Do we posit that it’s a “hard choice” whether or not to kill our parents, our neighbor, our spouse? By using language like this the church lends credibility to the idea that it may be morally acceptable to in fact terminate a pregnancy. This language introduces moral ambiguity where moral clarity is required. It’s not a hard choice whether or not children should be killed. Underneath any troubled pregnancy often exist very hard circumstances, and we should rightly acknowledge that and pray for strength and wisdom to deal with those hard circumstances. We ought rightly to pray and act on behalf of those facing difficult circumstances. But we can and should do this without introducing moral ambiguity into the question of murder.
Hi 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 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.
Posted in: Gaslight Village
Susan,
Thanks for this reflection.
Posted in: How A CRC Helped Save My Life
Ryan, thanks for your testimony to the grace of God working through God's people. May you continue to bless and be blessed by the church.
Posted in: The Injustice of Abortion
Hi Bonnie,
Thanks for your engagement. It is indeed a staggering number, one that I'm afraid we've corporately become all too comfortable accepting as reality. I'm not sure what the modern-day equivalent of sackcloth and ashes is, but it seems like your call to repentance is a good start. Thanks for your supportive and encouraging words.
Posted in: What Does It Mean to Be a Bi-National Denomination When the Rhetoric Between the Two Nations Becomes Bitter?
Hi Virginia,
Thanks for opening a conversation. I will try to answer your questions directly and perhaps add a bit of commentary that gets at the broader conversation.
If I may begin by noting a couple things about myself for context. I am heavily Canadian influenced, as my Dad was from Canada (though not a citizen) and much of his family remains there. This led to a lot of Canadian visits and Canadian influence from a young age. As I got older I had additional reasons to visit, with two married siblings settling in Canada and my Mom eventually remarrying a Canadian after the passing of my Dad. Politically I am usually what someone might call conservative, but likely not fitting in a neat box. I did not vote for President Trump and find him in many ways highly objectionable.
With that context, to your questions (beginning with the title question).
"What Does It Mean to Be a Bi-National Denomination When the Rhetoric Between the Two Nations Becomes Bitter?" For me it means first and foremost that we are reminded that the reasons for and base of our historic union is not geographic, political, social, or cultural, but rather spiritual - we have a common confession. In other words, national rivalry does not change or damage our union, because our union was never based on a congenial national relation, but a much deeper spiritual union. In that spirit we can view the passing cares of geo-political machinations with a settled confidence in our mutual commitment to spiritual union.
"Do our American siblings believe the things the current administration has said about the Canadian border? Or who exploits whom in terms of trade?" Of course, I cannot speak to the totality of thinking of American CRC members, so I will offer my own perspective, colored by those I am familiar with in the CRC. Some the answer to that question depends on what statements or policy positions you are thinking of. Regarding trade, many U.S. CRC members will agree to an extent about the thrust of Trump rhetoric regarding certain Canadian protectionist trade practices. Now, all countries seek to protect their own interests - that much is fairly plain. Many U.S. CRC members are involved in agriculture, and it is not a secret that Canada has highly protectionist policies and tariffs for agriculture. In this Trump is not wrong. In true Trump fashion he overstates the matter for effect. It has often been said: Don't take Trump literally but do take him seriously. He's a showman at heart, and he does and says things for dramatic effect - always has and always will. Sometimes this has worked for him, sometimes it has failed. To that degree, his rhetoric on trade with Canada is overheated and not always accurate, though it contains some underlying realities.
As for Trump's rhetoric on the 51st state, most Americans think of that as a joke, and it mostly is. I say "mostly" because here again Trump is exaggerating and being over-the-top, but with intended purpose, and it plays right into certain historic Canadian self-perceptions. Is Trump's style of diplomacy odd and abrasive at times? Most definitely. Is the U.S. going to invade, annex, conquer, or otherwise subsume Canada against their will? Most definitely not. Interestingly enough, though many disapprove of Trump and his sabre-rattling style of international engagement, Trump has not been the cause of international conflict or war. Trump's actual record is surprisingly one of peace. Personally, I have a great love for Canada and do not desire to see Canada degraded or disrespected. I do, however, also realize that the vast majority of daily concerns for Canadians are not Trump-caused, but products of Canada's own political decisions. It is partly for this reason that Canadians are being told by their government that Trump is the cause of what ails them - it distracts from Canada's own internal failures, which are legion.
I recently visited Canada and found myself quite literally under verbal attack in several situations once it was known that I was visiting from America (despite the fact that I am not a Trump voter). It was clear to me that for a certain segment of the population the government and an attendant press have done a good job of re-directing their anger from the ruling liberals to America or Americans, or at least anything related to Trump. Having said that, my Christian, CRC, and family connections in Canada make abundantly clear to me that Canadians are by no means of one mind regarding the seriousness of or damage caused by Trump rhetoric or policy. Many (including CRC members) are not at all looking for sympathy, solidarity, or the like in light of current geo-political happenings.
"Do we share faith without being willing to share worries and concerns?" Not at all. Certainly we seek to bear each others' burdens, rejoice with those who rejoice, and weep with those who weep. But we also must be aware that worries and concerns vary greatly. The CRC recently did put out a pastoral letter recognizing pain, hurt, concern among many Canadians. For some this statement was unnecessary and unhelpfully reactive. For others this statement was far short of adequate. Therein lies some of the challenge of denominational statements that attempt to represent a broad constituency with widely varying political, social, cultural, and economic perspectives. At the congregational level you may be surprised to know how many U.S. churches are praying for healed national relations. These things happen organically and without the sounding of trumpets or the publication of letters.
Thanks for raising these questions, as they make for interesting conversation and opportunity to understand each others' perspectives better.
Posted in: What Does It Mean to Be a Bi-National Denomination When the Rhetoric Between the Two Nations Becomes Bitter?
Hi again, Virginia. Thanks for your response.
You ask: "But should I conclude that you think he is basically truthful in his assertions about Canada?" I'd say that I would not go further than my original conclusion, that Trumps rhetoric "contains some underlying realities". Again, to support that general statement I note that Canada indisputably has highly protectionist trade policies regarding agriculture. Whether some of these policies have been negotiated or not, they are undoubtedly protectionist. I neither intend nor desire to parse all of Trump's statements and have gladly stipulated that many of Trump's statements are at best hyperbolic and at worst untrue. I'll let it stand at that.
As to your second paragraph, I'll reply to this idea: "If you mean that our first loyalty is to Jesus Christ and his Kingdom, then Amen." I mean that, but not only that. As a binational denomination we are located in the broader church in more specific and concrete ways that just our unity in Christ. You ask: "Doesn’t it mean something solid to share cultural, historical, creedal and social connections as well as ministries under a denominational umbrella?" Yes, indeed it does, and I would add "confessional" to that list, because it is our common confessions (beyond just our creeds, and much more importantly that cultural, historical, or social connections) that unite us spiritually/theologically. My point is that our national politics do not prevail upon or disrupt that union. We can stand astride our border as essentially meaningless in light of our common confession. None of that denies the challenges currently occurring but rises above those challenges. Many times Canadians misunderstand Americans and Americans misunderstand Canadians. We can live with those misunderstandings, and we can continue in commonality because what unites us is so much more meaningful than anything that might come between us. That is how I view our binational denomination. Thanks for the interaction, and my prayer for your is also for shalom.
Posted in: Prayer for Sanctity of Human Life Sunday
This posting raises in me some thoughts/ponderings:
Posted in: Did Synod 2024 Ignore or Violate Church Order?
Hi 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: 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.