Synodical decisions are classified by church order as "settled and binding" not open to disagreement.
Having been at Synod 2022 as a delegate and having had chance to interact significantly there with people of widely varying perspectives, I can say that your belief that Synod was mainly concerned about anxiety in the church is in error. It is better to let people speak for themselves, and you will find no testimony to that effect. Rather, people of all perspectives spoke of their longing for the church to minister in truth, wisdom and grace to all who are struggling.
The question is never if we have "all the answers" but rather whether or not we can understand God's will and act accordingly. To be sure, our efforts to that end will be marred by our sin until Christ returns, but that does not mean we don't strive. Synod 2022 did fall on their collective knees and beg God to help us follow his will. It was likely one of the most prayed-for, prayed-over, and prayed-during Synods that we could imagine. And that prayer continues.
Hi Bob. Thanks for jumping into the conversation. I don't see that the prioritized mission of the CRC has changed, and I don't see that we need to allow disagreement on any number of confessional issues in order to maintain that priority. We can maintain fealty to our confessional standards, including matters both salvific and non-salvific and continue to prioritize gospel ministry - as a matter of fact, for most of the history of the CRC we have managed to do so. What the Third Way proposes takes us away from that historic approach, and in some very monumental ways. How we understand and do ministry together is contained in a lot of these non-salvific areas. To treat these all as negotiable or optional would be to dissemble joint ministry as we know it. As noted in the article, I think we do well to wrestle with those far-reaching ramifications as we think about what this group of pastors is calling us to. I maintain that "the ask" is greater than initially appears.
Thanks so much for continuing the conversation. I appreciate your perspective.
I will tend to agree with you that we are seeing some things differently. Lots of reasons for that possibility, to be sure. I don't agree that the CRC has historically prioritized theological precision over mission. I don't see the two as mutually exclusive, but rather complementary.
You ask when synod last battled over missions, but you see we don't need to battle over that as a priority because we agree on it. We battle about sexuality right now because we disagree about it. Notice how each year at Synod there are lengthy reports from our missions agencies. These are non-controversial. I will not disagree that we can always do better on both formal (institutional) and informal (personal) missions, but I don't think that a lack of controversy at Synod over these matters is indicative of a lack of pursuit.
My experience in the local church is I guess opposite of what you describe, while certainly not perfect. I have spent my whole life in conservative (usually quite associated with desire for theological precision) Reformed churches (mostly CRC, but not my whole life) and have been immersed in mission my whole life. I would never say that I or the churches I have been in have somehow "arrived" or cannot be spurred on to even greater mission desire. But I was always taught in these settings that the theology led to and served the practice. Theology was never for putting on a shelf. The same Jesus that sent us out on mission said that we are to "teach them to observe everything I have commanded" and also said "If you love me you will keep my commandments."
It simply won't do for the church to sideline some of those commandments for the sake of mission. And it simply isn't necessary. We have a path forward to allowing greater time and energy for focusing on mission and less time and energy debating theology of sexuality. Instead of saying "do what you want" perhaps we should do what we commit to do together, and that is to submit to the judgment and authority of the church that we have chosen to associate with.
Beyond that, I think there are central premises of the OP that you are passing by. Do you believe that we can exist in unity under the call for treating non-salvific matters as secondary and open to varying belief and practice? Consider that such an approach could result in churches in the CRC normalizing and promoting pornography, promoting parental abuse, racial hatred, polygamy, slander, rebellion against church government, preaching from non-canonical books as God's Word, and much more. All of these issues and more are "non-salvific" in the same manner as how proponents of a Third Way propose to treat homosexuality. Would these variabilities lead to greater commonality of and focus on gospel mission? I cannot see how that could possibly be true.
Posted in: Peace of Conscience and Unity in the Church: Why I Did What I Did As a Delegate to Synod 2022
Synodical decisions are classified by church order as "settled and binding" not open to disagreement.
Having been at Synod 2022 as a delegate and having had chance to interact significantly there with people of widely varying perspectives, I can say that your belief that Synod was mainly concerned about anxiety in the church is in error. It is better to let people speak for themselves, and you will find no testimony to that effect. Rather, people of all perspectives spoke of their longing for the church to minister in truth, wisdom and grace to all who are struggling.
The question is never if we have "all the answers" but rather whether or not we can understand God's will and act accordingly. To be sure, our efforts to that end will be marred by our sin until Christ returns, but that does not mean we don't strive. Synod 2022 did fall on their collective knees and beg God to help us follow his will. It was likely one of the most prayed-for, prayed-over, and prayed-during Synods that we could imagine. And that prayer continues.
Posted in: Thinking About a 'Third Way' – Are Non-salvific Matters Negotiable?
Hi Bob. Thanks for jumping into the conversation. I don't see that the prioritized mission of the CRC has changed, and I don't see that we need to allow disagreement on any number of confessional issues in order to maintain that priority. We can maintain fealty to our confessional standards, including matters both salvific and non-salvific and continue to prioritize gospel ministry - as a matter of fact, for most of the history of the CRC we have managed to do so. What the Third Way proposes takes us away from that historic approach, and in some very monumental ways. How we understand and do ministry together is contained in a lot of these non-salvific areas. To treat these all as negotiable or optional would be to dissemble joint ministry as we know it. As noted in the article, I think we do well to wrestle with those far-reaching ramifications as we think about what this group of pastors is calling us to. I maintain that "the ask" is greater than initially appears.
Thanks again for your thoughts.
Posted in: Thinking About a 'Third Way' – Are Non-salvific Matters Negotiable?
Hi Bob,
Thanks so much for continuing the conversation. I appreciate your perspective.
I will tend to agree with you that we are seeing some things differently. Lots of reasons for that possibility, to be sure. I don't agree that the CRC has historically prioritized theological precision over mission. I don't see the two as mutually exclusive, but rather complementary.
You ask when synod last battled over missions, but you see we don't need to battle over that as a priority because we agree on it. We battle about sexuality right now because we disagree about it. Notice how each year at Synod there are lengthy reports from our missions agencies. These are non-controversial. I will not disagree that we can always do better on both formal (institutional) and informal (personal) missions, but I don't think that a lack of controversy at Synod over these matters is indicative of a lack of pursuit.
My experience in the local church is I guess opposite of what you describe, while certainly not perfect. I have spent my whole life in conservative (usually quite associated with desire for theological precision) Reformed churches (mostly CRC, but not my whole life) and have been immersed in mission my whole life. I would never say that I or the churches I have been in have somehow "arrived" or cannot be spurred on to even greater mission desire. But I was always taught in these settings that the theology led to and served the practice. Theology was never for putting on a shelf. The same Jesus that sent us out on mission said that we are to "teach them to observe everything I have commanded" and also said "If you love me you will keep my commandments."
It simply won't do for the church to sideline some of those commandments for the sake of mission. And it simply isn't necessary. We have a path forward to allowing greater time and energy for focusing on mission and less time and energy debating theology of sexuality. Instead of saying "do what you want" perhaps we should do what we commit to do together, and that is to submit to the judgment and authority of the church that we have chosen to associate with.
Beyond that, I think there are central premises of the OP that you are passing by. Do you believe that we can exist in unity under the call for treating non-salvific matters as secondary and open to varying belief and practice? Consider that such an approach could result in churches in the CRC normalizing and promoting pornography, promoting parental abuse, racial hatred, polygamy, slander, rebellion against church government, preaching from non-canonical books as God's Word, and much more. All of these issues and more are "non-salvific" in the same manner as how proponents of a Third Way propose to treat homosexuality. Would these variabilities lead to greater commonality of and focus on gospel mission? I cannot see how that could possibly be true.