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: 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.