Hi again, Rob. If absolutely necessary, I think it best that examples be quite general or common to the human experience, so as to avoid the appearance of targeting. So, if one particular member of the congregation drives a Cadillac Escalade, a pastor (or elders) would be wise not to use that particular example (did I just use that example?!?).
I do wonder if specific examples are necessary to get the point across. I think that more common language and explanation than "opulence" can be used, and I think the principle can be applied directly to questions of our heart motivation, security, comfort, etc. without using specific examples of things that the pastor judges to be too far - unless of course the pastor wants to use his own judgment of his own life and decisions as an example. This could be thorny too.
No matter how the question of examples is approached, I think we want to approach the overall topic with urgency, seriousness, conviction, and self-examination mixed with grace, humility, pastoral wisdom, and non-judgmentalism. May God grant us wisdom, humility, and the repentance for the heart-work necessary in this area. Thanks for the conversation. May God bless you and keep you.
It's also perhaps worth reminding ourselves that Jesus was contrasting his limited time remaining on earth with the continued presence of those struggling in this broken world, as opposed to suggesting any indifference to the needs of the poor. The fact that the poor will always be with us is a continual reminder of two things: First, the consequences of sin in this world; and second, the continual call for us to show Christ-like, sacrificial love to our neighbors.
Hi again, Hetty. I ran across a recent article that expands on some of what I was angling at in my response. It doesn't say everything (nor have I), but it is helpful in providing additional perspective.
I would also note that while organizations like PETA get a lot of publicity, the North American model of conservation (the most successful in the world) is radically and intentionally driven by hunters, fishers, and trappers - they are the original environmentalists, before it was cool. Public and conservation land acquisitions and protections are driven largely by (self-voted) taxation on sportsmen (used generically) and by volunteer conservation dollars of sportsmen - we put our money where our mouth is regarding conservation because we have a tie to, appreciation of, bond with, and love for the land and its creatures. This love is formed, fed, and fueled in our times in the field.
I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood you. I thought you were looking for conversation and greater understanding, as you asked a question in response to me. I don't need reasons and arguments to support what I do, as if to justify my actions as I might if I was proposing to eat children. If you would yet like conversation at some point, I'm glad to engage further with you.
Thanks for this reflection, Rob. These are wise and helpful words, and they are particularly helpful because they are rooted in spiritual realities, not psychological appeals. May God bless your ministry.
The argument that human harm or damage must be identifiable in order for something to be sin misses the vertical component of sin. Sin is not first and foremost against other people, but against God. When David confesses his sin in Psalm 51 he realizes that though he has used and abused a woman and killed a man, it is first and foremost against God that he has sinned (verse 4).
Sin is any thought, word, or deed that violates God's holy standard, whether we can see damage or not. Suppose that I privately worship idols. Nobody is hurt. There is no external damage. But it certainly is sin against God. Or suppose my wife and I are into spouse swapping with another couple who also consents. Where is the harm? We might even say that it strengthens our relationship because it teaches us unconditional trust and helps us explore our truest desires. Your line of reasoning would seem to render this arrangement acceptable.
Thanks for responding. I am glad to have conversation with you. You start your response by asserting something, but you place the locus of my purported judgment on the human testimony or judgment, which I reject. I would reply with the words of Isaiah 8:20 - "To the law and to the testimony." This is the crux of my pushback to you. I would judge each marriage not first or primarily on the testimony of the partners, but on God's testimony concerning his righteous standard.
The other scenarios I bring up are not distractions at all, because they help illustrate that the "lack of perceived harm" standard for determining sin cannot be relied on as our standard. An even more poignant example can be found in the fall in Genesis. Scripture records: "So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate."
Notice how Scripture describes the apple in humanly appealing terms: good for food, delight to the eyes, and desired to make one wise. It's just fruit and it has all these benefits! What's the harm?! That question was asked to me on the floor of Synod last year, with the same implication that you have, that if I could not name some human harm then I should reconsider Scripture (again). If God says it damages our relationship with him, that is all that matters. We don't get to trump God on this. Notice that Satan also made the same appeal that contrary to damaging Eve's relationship with God (you will not surely die), eating of the fruit would make Eve like God, knowing good and evil.
In the end, then, it is not that I am taking the testimony of a straight couple over that of a gay couple. Rather, I trust that God knows best, even when it strikes us a terribly difficult. Yes, that applies to me first and foremost. I must continually look at my life and see what things I may be allowing to remain that God has said must be put to death. I may enjoy them. I may think I am not doing any harm. I may even find that they are deeply personal and embedded. But God comes to me in my weakness and promises strength through Christ to achieve victory, even though the struggle will never be over this side of the grave. I proclaim with the Apostle Paul in Romans 7:25 - "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!"
I think you are close to what I am saying, but I would phrase things differently. First, I would note that I am always willing to re-evaluate (on a personal level). Such evaluation and re-evaluation is kind of an ongoing process for many (most? all?) people as we struggle our way through life. But official re-evaluation for doctrinal statements cannot be an ongoing, never-ending process, or our life together will be chaotic. Second, I would say that what I am really driving at is that perceptions of harm are insufficient for understanding sin. There need not be an identification of harm in order for something to be understood as sinful. It is enough for God to declare something sinful, even if we do not understand why or see what we believe are harmful repercussions.
I would note further that in light of what many believe is earthly evidence the CRC has just re-evaluated Scripture. But, as noted earlier, that re-evaluation cannot be unending for the sake of the health of the church. A re-evaluation does not mean that things necessarily change. Sometimes we confirm what we have always believed.
I am grateful for the opportunity to converse with you and will be glad to hear of further thoughts you have. I think we may be on the same page in a recent statement I saw you make in another context: "I sometimes wonder if it's better to skip the niceties and state the obvious. The CRCNA is not prepared to make space for those who will continue to view things differently than Synod 2022." I agree with that statement with caveats. May God bless you and keep you.
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.
Posted in: Christians Clothed in Babylonian Silk
Hi again, Rob. If absolutely necessary, I think it best that examples be quite general or common to the human experience, so as to avoid the appearance of targeting. So, if one particular member of the congregation drives a Cadillac Escalade, a pastor (or elders) would be wise not to use that particular example (did I just use that example?!?).
I do wonder if specific examples are necessary to get the point across. I think that more common language and explanation than "opulence" can be used, and I think the principle can be applied directly to questions of our heart motivation, security, comfort, etc. without using specific examples of things that the pastor judges to be too far - unless of course the pastor wants to use his own judgment of his own life and decisions as an example. This could be thorny too.
No matter how the question of examples is approached, I think we want to approach the overall topic with urgency, seriousness, conviction, and self-examination mixed with grace, humility, pastoral wisdom, and non-judgmentalism. May God grant us wisdom, humility, and the repentance for the heart-work necessary in this area. Thanks for the conversation. May God bless you and keep you.
Posted in: Christians Clothed in Babylonian Silk
It's also perhaps worth reminding ourselves that Jesus was contrasting his limited time remaining on earth with the continued presence of those struggling in this broken world, as opposed to suggesting any indifference to the needs of the poor. The fact that the poor will always be with us is a continual reminder of two things: First, the consequences of sin in this world; and second, the continual call for us to show Christ-like, sacrificial love to our neighbors.
Posted in: Christians Clothed in Babylonian Silk
Hi again, Hetty. I ran across a recent article that expands on some of what I was angling at in my response. It doesn't say everything (nor have I), but it is helpful in providing additional perspective.
More than just meat | Christian Courier
I would also note that while organizations like PETA get a lot of publicity, the North American model of conservation (the most successful in the world) is radically and intentionally driven by hunters, fishers, and trappers - they are the original environmentalists, before it was cool. Public and conservation land acquisitions and protections are driven largely by (self-voted) taxation on sportsmen (used generically) and by volunteer conservation dollars of sportsmen - we put our money where our mouth is regarding conservation because we have a tie to, appreciation of, bond with, and love for the land and its creatures. This love is formed, fed, and fueled in our times in the field.
Posted in: Christians Clothed in Babylonian Silk
I'm sorry, I must have misunderstood you. I thought you were looking for conversation and greater understanding, as you asked a question in response to me. I don't need reasons and arguments to support what I do, as if to justify my actions as I might if I was proposing to eat children. If you would yet like conversation at some point, I'm glad to engage further with you.
Posted in: How Is God So Joyful When The World's So Sad?
Thanks for this reflection, Rob. These are wise and helpful words, and they are particularly helpful because they are rooted in spiritual realities, not psychological appeals. May God bless your ministry.
Posted in: The Three Minds and the Third Way
Hi Anton,
The argument that human harm or damage must be identifiable in order for something to be sin misses the vertical component of sin. Sin is not first and foremost against other people, but against God. When David confesses his sin in Psalm 51 he realizes that though he has used and abused a woman and killed a man, it is first and foremost against God that he has sinned (verse 4).
Sin is any thought, word, or deed that violates God's holy standard, whether we can see damage or not. Suppose that I privately worship idols. Nobody is hurt. There is no external damage. But it certainly is sin against God. Or suppose my wife and I are into spouse swapping with another couple who also consents. Where is the harm? We might even say that it strengthens our relationship because it teaches us unconditional trust and helps us explore our truest desires. Your line of reasoning would seem to render this arrangement acceptable.
Posted in: The Three Minds and the Third Way
Hello Anton,
Thanks for responding. I am glad to have conversation with you. You start your response by asserting something, but you place the locus of my purported judgment on the human testimony or judgment, which I reject. I would reply with the words of Isaiah 8:20 - "To the law and to the testimony." This is the crux of my pushback to you. I would judge each marriage not first or primarily on the testimony of the partners, but on God's testimony concerning his righteous standard.
The other scenarios I bring up are not distractions at all, because they help illustrate that the "lack of perceived harm" standard for determining sin cannot be relied on as our standard. An even more poignant example can be found in the fall in Genesis. Scripture records: "So when the woman saw that the tree was good for food, and that it was a delight to the eyes, and that the tree was to be desired to make one wise, she took of its fruit and ate, and she also gave some to her husband who was with her, and he ate."
Notice how Scripture describes the apple in humanly appealing terms: good for food, delight to the eyes, and desired to make one wise. It's just fruit and it has all these benefits! What's the harm?! That question was asked to me on the floor of Synod last year, with the same implication that you have, that if I could not name some human harm then I should reconsider Scripture (again). If God says it damages our relationship with him, that is all that matters. We don't get to trump God on this. Notice that Satan also made the same appeal that contrary to damaging Eve's relationship with God (you will not surely die), eating of the fruit would make Eve like God, knowing good and evil.
In the end, then, it is not that I am taking the testimony of a straight couple over that of a gay couple. Rather, I trust that God knows best, even when it strikes us a terribly difficult. Yes, that applies to me first and foremost. I must continually look at my life and see what things I may be allowing to remain that God has said must be put to death. I may enjoy them. I may think I am not doing any harm. I may even find that they are deeply personal and embedded. But God comes to me in my weakness and promises strength through Christ to achieve victory, even though the struggle will never be over this side of the grave. I proclaim with the Apostle Paul in Romans 7:25 - "Thanks be to God through Jesus Christ our Lord!"
Thanks again for engaging.
Posted in: The Three Minds and the Third Way
Hi again Anton,
I think you are close to what I am saying, but I would phrase things differently. First, I would note that I am always willing to re-evaluate (on a personal level). Such evaluation and re-evaluation is kind of an ongoing process for many (most? all?) people as we struggle our way through life. But official re-evaluation for doctrinal statements cannot be an ongoing, never-ending process, or our life together will be chaotic. Second, I would say that what I am really driving at is that perceptions of harm are insufficient for understanding sin. There need not be an identification of harm in order for something to be understood as sinful. It is enough for God to declare something sinful, even if we do not understand why or see what we believe are harmful repercussions.
I would note further that in light of what many believe is earthly evidence the CRC has just re-evaluated Scripture. But, as noted earlier, that re-evaluation cannot be unending for the sake of the health of the church. A re-evaluation does not mean that things necessarily change. Sometimes we confirm what we have always believed.
I am grateful for the opportunity to converse with you and will be glad to hear of further thoughts you have. I think we may be on the same page in a recent statement I saw you make in another context: "I sometimes wonder if it's better to skip the niceties and state the obvious. The CRCNA is not prepared to make space for those who will continue to view things differently than Synod 2022." I agree with that statement with caveats. May God bless you and keep you.
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.