I wholeheartedly agree with you when you pose this relevant and important question: “Where do we need to tear down the walls of "the Fort," walls of tradition that inhibit our effectiveness in reaching out to others, and where must we keep and even strengthen the walls because they define who we are.” I frankly don’t think there is ever a time when this question is not relevant – we will/should have this question in the foreground in all of our work/walk. I think this is our apostolic/Berean/Protestant mantle to carry. To this degree I think you have demonstrated that while we may have differing cultural backgrounds we indeed have much in common.
I don’t necessarily disagree with your general sketch of the culture or ethos of rural CRC-dom, and can confirm that the majority of my faith formation occurred in this milieu. What I would push back against is any insinuation or implication that this desire to preserve tradition and skepticism of change is the defining or determining feature of how a classis such as Classis Minnkota comes to hold the positions that it does vis-à-vis sexuality and the proper response of the church to cultural and (in some cases) ecclesiastical changes. I have been in the belly of the beast, as it were, for most of my adult life as it relates to wrestling with questions of doctrine and life in the church. What I have observed in the rural settings where this wrestling has occurred is not some bland sentimentality, but a concerted (though imperfect) desire and attempt to “Hate what is evil; cling to what is good” (Romans 12:9). The Bible has much to recommend regarding the base impulse to preserve the teaching (tradition) of the church and view novel doctrine with suspicion. To be sure, this impulse can be misused or misguided, but at its core it is a fundamentally biblical impulse that I am glad to have had handed down to me.
In the end I am blessed that God has called me to a family of believers, because by myself I am prone to unbalanced notions of what I must tear down and what I must keep and strengthen. To that extent I think the CRC has been engaging in the exact type of wrestling that you recommend and has done so under her agreed upon process and with her agreed upon authority and boundaries.
It is not for me to define the walls of the tent. It is interesting to me that you reference Isaiah 54 in this conversation, because this is one in the many passages in Scripture that uses the metaphor of husband and wife to depict the relationship between God and his people, as Paul explicates in no uncertain terms for us in Ephesians 5. I think this highlights that God’s designs are not neutral or malleable for us – they have lasting and significant weight and meaning beyond the physical and into the spiritual.
The tent metaphor in this passage is not being used by Isaiah to encourage the Israelites to somehow change the teaching/doctrine/law to draw a wider boundary, but rather to prepare themselves to experience God’s blessing. Israel is compared to a barren woman who has experienced shame and a lack of bounty/blessing – that is why the tent is small, and it was due to their disobedience. God is reminding Israel of his enduring promises to Abraham to make him a blessing to all nations and to make his descendants innumerable. Ironically, it was Israel’s unauthorized “widening” of the tent to take on the practices and habits of the pagan nations around them (notably in the sexual realm) that had brought God’s judgment on them in the first place. Rebellion against God is not the type of tent-widening being referenced in Isaiah 54, but rather God’s providential and sovereign blessing on his people. The post-apostolic church is a dramatic realization of this tent-widening promise made by God.
Is the CRC tent big enough for both of us? Yes! But the CRC’s tent walls are not ours to define – they have been defined by the church together in light of God’s Word. It’s not about what Eric thinks or what Doug thinks. If we place ourselves outside of the tent walls we cannot then look back at the church and decry the church for her lack of inclusivity – it is we who have excluded ourselves. It is my heartfelt desire to dwell with you within these walls, for these are walls of protection and blessing.
I am thankful for your willingness and desire to think and reason together. May God bless you and keep you.
You have offered some very good thoughts and warnings about the limitations and trappings of surveys as a method of listening. Much of it resonates with my experience and observation.
The linked page says that the denomination uses the survey to "listen". I wonder just how much some of the separation and struggle in the CRC would be different if "the denomination" (read: bureaucratic structure) listened more in person at the congregational and classical level and less from offices in Grand Rapids. And yes, diasporic churches would likely also view some of those bureaucratic figures differently as well if allowed interaction that was not mediated through reports, magazines, editorials, and the like.
I don't watch the Super Bowl, so I did not see those particular ads. I have seen their campaign more broadly. Though I share your struggle with the immense sum of money spent on two ads, I have more concern about the campaign in general. I think Natasha Crain's critique hits home on a number of important points. In the end, any Jesus who is not explicitly the Son of God is an empty Jesus.
Thanks for engaging. Did Crain not quote the president of the marketing agency behind the ad campaign as saying “Ultimately, the goal is inspiration, not recruitment or conversion.” And she rightly points it a number of times that the "inspirational" Jesus that they point to is not the God-man Savior, but a nice guy who gets us. It seems like she is not making assumptions about the goal, but responding to a stated goal.
The problem with McKendry's reply above is several-fold. First, they specifically say in their FAQ that the goal is not to get people to go to church, so they are essentially working against the "you tell 'em who Jesus is, pastor" model. Second, if *all* of their material simply pictures Jesus a nice guy who understands us and promoted peace and love, what about that description would drive people to a church or conversation with a pastor to hear the gospel? What makes Jesus stand out, then, if he is not explicitly the Son of God? Why would I care that he understands me? If he is just a guy in history, his understanding or lack thereof is meaningless to me. Third, much of their depiction of Jesus will work *against* what the proverbial pastor will try to communicate regarding who Jesus really is - as Crain notes, the campaign feeds and echos pop culture ideas of Jesus rather than contradicting them.
I will grant this: the first rule of advertising is to be memorable (or create buzz/visibility). The saying has been heard that any publicity is good publicity. There is a reason that McDonalds doesn't care how much I hate their jingle as long as it sticks in my head. I don't love that philosophy for the church, but to that extent, this campaign may have some success despite its weaknesses/faults. Some people may become curious and God may use that to draw them to himself. I don't think that excuses the weaknesses/faults.
"I do know that my brother, who is in their target audience of religiously skeptic, appreciated the ads and wants to know more."
Nate, for that I praise God. In the end, God can and will use even our most flawed efforts for his ends. May it be that God wills to draw your brother near such that he may move from skeptic to adopted son.
I like this reflection, Rob. I have to face this regularly in my professional work, and recently in a fairly acute manner. As the Holy Spirit has worked sanctification in my heart and life, I have gotten steadily better at not reacting. There is a time and place to defend oneself in words and actions, but allowing oneself to be insulted without any response is often the most beneficial path. As I have become more practiced at remaining silent, I have found that God often will provide for my vindication himself - and sometime not, and that's ok too.
Certainly, Rob. I agree wholeheartedly that the Church ought to regularly exhort in this arena, particularly in the N.A. context where luxury abounds and independence/hoarding/selfishness are cultural touchstones. What will be helpful for us, I think, is when the church leans hard on the principle and leaves the application to the hearer. We tend to get into trouble when we err in either over-specificity in application or under-emphasis on the principle. So, the pastor who never works in a plea/call for sacrificial living and rejection of selfish opulence is erring, just as is the pastor who feels it necessary to impugn any congregational members with a lake cabin or more than one car. Thanks for stimulating us to reflect on these things and the seriousness of the call for us to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Christ.
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.
Posted in: Crucial Conversations at Synod, Part II
Hi Doug,
I wholeheartedly agree with you when you pose this relevant and important question: “Where do we need to tear down the walls of "the Fort," walls of tradition that inhibit our effectiveness in reaching out to others, and where must we keep and even strengthen the walls because they define who we are.” I frankly don’t think there is ever a time when this question is not relevant – we will/should have this question in the foreground in all of our work/walk. I think this is our apostolic/Berean/Protestant mantle to carry. To this degree I think you have demonstrated that while we may have differing cultural backgrounds we indeed have much in common.
I don’t necessarily disagree with your general sketch of the culture or ethos of rural CRC-dom, and can confirm that the majority of my faith formation occurred in this milieu. What I would push back against is any insinuation or implication that this desire to preserve tradition and skepticism of change is the defining or determining feature of how a classis such as Classis Minnkota comes to hold the positions that it does vis-à-vis sexuality and the proper response of the church to cultural and (in some cases) ecclesiastical changes. I have been in the belly of the beast, as it were, for most of my adult life as it relates to wrestling with questions of doctrine and life in the church. What I have observed in the rural settings where this wrestling has occurred is not some bland sentimentality, but a concerted (though imperfect) desire and attempt to “Hate what is evil; cling to what is good” (Romans 12:9). The Bible has much to recommend regarding the base impulse to preserve the teaching (tradition) of the church and view novel doctrine with suspicion. To be sure, this impulse can be misused or misguided, but at its core it is a fundamentally biblical impulse that I am glad to have had handed down to me.
In the end I am blessed that God has called me to a family of believers, because by myself I am prone to unbalanced notions of what I must tear down and what I must keep and strengthen. To that extent I think the CRC has been engaging in the exact type of wrestling that you recommend and has done so under her agreed upon process and with her agreed upon authority and boundaries.
It is not for me to define the walls of the tent. It is interesting to me that you reference Isaiah 54 in this conversation, because this is one in the many passages in Scripture that uses the metaphor of husband and wife to depict the relationship between God and his people, as Paul explicates in no uncertain terms for us in Ephesians 5. I think this highlights that God’s designs are not neutral or malleable for us – they have lasting and significant weight and meaning beyond the physical and into the spiritual.
The tent metaphor in this passage is not being used by Isaiah to encourage the Israelites to somehow change the teaching/doctrine/law to draw a wider boundary, but rather to prepare themselves to experience God’s blessing. Israel is compared to a barren woman who has experienced shame and a lack of bounty/blessing – that is why the tent is small, and it was due to their disobedience. God is reminding Israel of his enduring promises to Abraham to make him a blessing to all nations and to make his descendants innumerable. Ironically, it was Israel’s unauthorized “widening” of the tent to take on the practices and habits of the pagan nations around them (notably in the sexual realm) that had brought God’s judgment on them in the first place. Rebellion against God is not the type of tent-widening being referenced in Isaiah 54, but rather God’s providential and sovereign blessing on his people. The post-apostolic church is a dramatic realization of this tent-widening promise made by God.
Is the CRC tent big enough for both of us? Yes! But the CRC’s tent walls are not ours to define – they have been defined by the church together in light of God’s Word. It’s not about what Eric thinks or what Doug thinks. If we place ourselves outside of the tent walls we cannot then look back at the church and decry the church for her lack of inclusivity – it is we who have excluded ourselves. It is my heartfelt desire to dwell with you within these walls, for these are walls of protection and blessing.
I am thankful for your willingness and desire to think and reason together. May God bless you and keep you.
Eric
Posted in: Congregational Feedback: Surveys vs. Listening Circles
Hi Sean,
You have offered some very good thoughts and warnings about the limitations and trappings of surveys as a method of listening. Much of it resonates with my experience and observation.
I wonder, have you shared this perspective within the CRC denominational organization? Denominational Survey | Christian Reformed Church (crcna.org)
The linked page says that the denomination uses the survey to "listen". I wonder just how much some of the separation and struggle in the CRC would be different if "the denomination" (read: bureaucratic structure) listened more in person at the congregational and classical level and less from offices in Grand Rapids. And yes, diasporic churches would likely also view some of those bureaucratic figures differently as well if allowed interaction that was not mediated through reports, magazines, editorials, and the like.
Posted in: Where Did You Worship This Past Sunday?
First CRC of Prinsburg, MN
Posted in: 'He Gets Us' Super Bowl Commercials - What Did You Think?
Hi Staci,
I don't watch the Super Bowl, so I did not see those particular ads. I have seen their campaign more broadly. Though I share your struggle with the immense sum of money spent on two ads, I have more concern about the campaign in general. I think Natasha Crain's critique hits home on a number of important points. In the end, any Jesus who is not explicitly the Son of God is an empty Jesus.
7 Problems with the He Gets Us Campaign | Natasha Crain
Posted in: 'He Gets Us' Super Bowl Commercials - What Did You Think?
Hi Nate,
Thanks for engaging. Did Crain not quote the president of the marketing agency behind the ad campaign as saying “Ultimately, the goal is inspiration, not recruitment or conversion.” And she rightly points it a number of times that the "inspirational" Jesus that they point to is not the God-man Savior, but a nice guy who gets us. It seems like she is not making assumptions about the goal, but responding to a stated goal.
The problem with McKendry's reply above is several-fold. First, they specifically say in their FAQ that the goal is not to get people to go to church, so they are essentially working against the "you tell 'em who Jesus is, pastor" model. Second, if *all* of their material simply pictures Jesus a nice guy who understands us and promoted peace and love, what about that description would drive people to a church or conversation with a pastor to hear the gospel? What makes Jesus stand out, then, if he is not explicitly the Son of God? Why would I care that he understands me? If he is just a guy in history, his understanding or lack thereof is meaningless to me. Third, much of their depiction of Jesus will work *against* what the proverbial pastor will try to communicate regarding who Jesus really is - as Crain notes, the campaign feeds and echos pop culture ideas of Jesus rather than contradicting them.
I will grant this: the first rule of advertising is to be memorable (or create buzz/visibility). The saying has been heard that any publicity is good publicity. There is a reason that McDonalds doesn't care how much I hate their jingle as long as it sticks in my head. I don't love that philosophy for the church, but to that extent, this campaign may have some success despite its weaknesses/faults. Some people may become curious and God may use that to draw them to himself. I don't think that excuses the weaknesses/faults.
Posted in: 'He Gets Us' Super Bowl Commercials - What Did You Think?
"I do know that my brother, who is in their target audience of religiously skeptic, appreciated the ads and wants to know more."
Nate, for that I praise God. In the end, God can and will use even our most flawed efforts for his ends. May it be that God wills to draw your brother near such that he may move from skeptic to adopted son.
Posted in: Blessings and Accusations
I like this reflection, Rob. I have to face this regularly in my professional work, and recently in a fairly acute manner. As the Holy Spirit has worked sanctification in my heart and life, I have gotten steadily better at not reacting. There is a time and place to defend oneself in words and actions, but allowing oneself to be insulted without any response is often the most beneficial path. As I have become more practiced at remaining silent, I have found that God often will provide for my vindication himself - and sometime not, and that's ok too.
Posted in: Christians Clothed in Babylonian Silk
Certainly, Rob. I agree wholeheartedly that the Church ought to regularly exhort in this arena, particularly in the N.A. context where luxury abounds and independence/hoarding/selfishness are cultural touchstones. What will be helpful for us, I think, is when the church leans hard on the principle and leaves the application to the hearer. We tend to get into trouble when we err in either over-specificity in application or under-emphasis on the principle. So, the pastor who never works in a plea/call for sacrificial living and rejection of selfish opulence is erring, just as is the pastor who feels it necessary to impugn any congregational members with a lake cabin or more than one car. Thanks for stimulating us to reflect on these things and the seriousness of the call for us to deny ourselves, take up our cross, and follow Christ.
Posted in: Christians Clothed in Babylonian Silk
Next time you find yourself in the position to pour out expensive perfume on the King of Kings, you take that chance, Dan! ;)
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.