It's an interesting point, Bev. When Jesus commanded us to be one, just as he and the Father were one, what exactly did he mean? I don't know that the Bible gives us a direct answer to the formation of church clusters based on geography or theological affinity as most of that work had to be done by the churches after the canon of Scripture was closed. The church fairly quickly went toward geographical distinctions, as demonstrated by the 12 Patriarches of the early church.
Since then, of course, the church has made an unseemly mess of itself through schism, division and the like. On the other hand, the early church was tasked with the work of crafting Orthodoxy and any attempt at crafting Orthodoxy requires a distancing of self from heresy, right?
Augustine of Hippo said: "In the essentials, unity. In the non-essentials, liberty and in all things, charity." The church gets itself "all twist-turned up-side-down" because we don't know how to parse the essentials (requiring unity) from the non-essentials (allow for distinction.) One of the benefits of being a creedal/confessional denomination (it seems to me) is that the work of discerning essentials/non-essentials has been done for us. In this case, then, is the seating of women delegates at Classis -- according to our Creeds/Confessions -- an essential or non-essential issue? And, regardless, how are we tasked to demonstrate charity?
That article certainly is an important read but I'm not sure how much it applies here. I do not want to lump the members of Classis Grand Rapids North or my own beloved Classis Kalamazoo in with the likes of John Piper.
Ah, then, you know this conversation well. It is the same churches petitioning for the development of a new classis because, at Synod 2010 they were not allowed to join a Classis hundreds of miles away from their own churches. Surely the distance was thought to be a hindrance to effective ministry. So just because it was discussed then does not, I believe, necessarily translate into acquiescing this request. There is MUCH precident set for individual congregations joining like-minded classis. There is no precident set for the establishment of a new classis for the purpose of theological affinity.
Help me understand your point, Harry. Is the church better in the eyes of the world in multiple independant church variations or is it better when churches hold onto each other in affiliations (even though that requires debate and argumentation at times)?
stay tuned for two more posts where I attempt to lay these arguments out. PLEASE feel free to respond there. As always, you have quite a remarkable gift for the politics and nuances of these things. Henry DeMoor should be proud!
Norm, semantics are not lost of me. I have been on the receiving end of similar slights of course. I will work hard to not allow good argumentation to become bogged down in petty jabs.
The distinction between Classis Red Mesa/Classis Pacific Hamni and this proposed Affinity Classis is that the line being drawn is theological rather than cultural/linguistic. (Of course, if we were all living into the Shalom of Christ's Kingdom coming, even these distinctions would become unnecessary.) It seems the original geographical set-up of Classes was a practical one. Are we at a place where dividing up along party lines with regard to women serving in ecclesiastical office is a practical necessity?
And, as yet, it has not been shown that there are the required number of churches necessary to constitute a new Classis. It almost seems these other churches who might be interested (as alluded to in Overture 4) are allowing Trinity Sparta/Second CRC to be their test balloons (kindly said)/whipping boys (less-kindly-said). Surely Overtures 3 & 4 would have stronger merit if the churches who have alluded to possibly maybe being interested in joining Affinity Classis MI (what WILL this thing be called in the end?) would man up and own up.
The true trouble with our denomination's situation with regard to differing opinions on women serving in ecclesiastical office is that there are no easy parallels -- at least none that I can find.
Our denomination's position with regard to baptism/re-baptism is clearly a confessional matter. We have determined that women's ordination is not a confessional matter. On the other hand, the example that readily came to my mind (to own my own prejudices) was the issue of worship style in which there is much freedom within the denomination to believe and practice several different options. But I understand (as a former Baptist Fundamentalist/Evangelical, perhaps more than most) that the argument over women serving in ecclesiastical office is far more deeply rooted and profound than praise chorus v. organ.
So it's hard for me to follow the hypothetical situation you pose.
Thank you so much for your reply. I confess to being disheartened by the lack of responses to what I think is a really interesting study report. I appreciate the historical insight you bring to this. I have also been wondering about the connection between recieving The Belhar Confession as a gift/ecumenical confession and enacting it's impulses in the very practical ways demonstrated by this study committee report. Orthopraxis alongside orthodoxy. Who woulda thunk it?!?
Originally, I don't think this post followed on the heels of the one about re-studying to advise the church on homosexuality. That changes whether I thought it would recieve more or fewer hits. ;-)
That's a really interesting point about "a scarcity mentality." I don't want us plotting our future from a place of anxiety, fear or lack of trust in God's provision. AND I want us to be wise, recognizing that at some point, the top gets so heavy it begins to crush what is underneath it. I don't know how to reconcile these two thoughts, though both are important to me.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
It's an interesting point, Bev. When Jesus commanded us to be one, just as he and the Father were one, what exactly did he mean? I don't know that the Bible gives us a direct answer to the formation of church clusters based on geography or theological affinity as most of that work had to be done by the churches after the canon of Scripture was closed. The church fairly quickly went toward geographical distinctions, as demonstrated by the 12 Patriarches of the early church.
Since then, of course, the church has made an unseemly mess of itself through schism, division and the like. On the other hand, the early church was tasked with the work of crafting Orthodoxy and any attempt at crafting Orthodoxy requires a distancing of self from heresy, right?
Augustine of Hippo said: "In the essentials, unity. In the non-essentials, liberty and in all things, charity." The church gets itself "all twist-turned up-side-down" because we don't know how to parse the essentials (requiring unity) from the non-essentials (allow for distinction.) One of the benefits of being a creedal/confessional denomination (it seems to me) is that the work of discerning essentials/non-essentials has been done for us. In this case, then, is the seating of women delegates at Classis -- according to our Creeds/Confessions -- an essential or non-essential issue? And, regardless, how are we tasked to demonstrate charity?
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
That article certainly is an important read but I'm not sure how much it applies here. I do not want to lump the members of Classis Grand Rapids North or my own beloved Classis Kalamazoo in with the likes of John Piper.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
Ah, then, you know this conversation well. It is the same churches petitioning for the development of a new classis because, at Synod 2010 they were not allowed to join a Classis hundreds of miles away from their own churches. Surely the distance was thought to be a hindrance to effective ministry. So just because it was discussed then does not, I believe, necessarily translate into acquiescing this request. There is MUCH precident set for individual congregations joining like-minded classis. There is no precident set for the establishment of a new classis for the purpose of theological affinity.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
Help me understand your point, Harry. Is the church better in the eyes of the world in multiple independant church variations or is it better when churches hold onto each other in affiliations (even though that requires debate and argumentation at times)?
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
stay tuned for two more posts where I attempt to lay these arguments out. PLEASE feel free to respond there. As always, you have quite a remarkable gift for the politics and nuances of these things. Henry DeMoor should be proud!
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
Norm, semantics are not lost of me. I have been on the receiving end of similar slights of course. I will work hard to not allow good argumentation to become bogged down in petty jabs.
The distinction between Classis Red Mesa/Classis Pacific Hamni and this proposed Affinity Classis is that the line being drawn is theological rather than cultural/linguistic. (Of course, if we were all living into the Shalom of Christ's Kingdom coming, even these distinctions would become unnecessary.) It seems the original geographical set-up of Classes was a practical one. Are we at a place where dividing up along party lines with regard to women serving in ecclesiastical office is a practical necessity?
And, as yet, it has not been shown that there are the required number of churches necessary to constitute a new Classis. It almost seems these other churches who might be interested (as alluded to in Overture 4) are allowing Trinity Sparta/Second CRC to be their test balloons (kindly said)/whipping boys (less-kindly-said). Surely Overtures 3 & 4 would have stronger merit if the churches who have alluded to possibly maybe being interested in joining Affinity Classis MI (what WILL this thing be called in the end?) would man up and own up.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
John,
The true trouble with our denomination's situation with regard to differing opinions on women serving in ecclesiastical office is that there are no easy parallels -- at least none that I can find.
Our denomination's position with regard to baptism/re-baptism is clearly a confessional matter. We have determined that women's ordination is not a confessional matter. On the other hand, the example that readily came to my mind (to own my own prejudices) was the issue of worship style in which there is much freedom within the denomination to believe and practice several different options. But I understand (as a former Baptist Fundamentalist/Evangelical, perhaps more than most) that the argument over women serving in ecclesiastical office is far more deeply rooted and profound than praise chorus v. organ.
So it's hard for me to follow the hypothetical situation you pose.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
Yeah. What Derek said.
Posted in: Diakonia Remix
Thank you so much for your reply. I confess to being disheartened by the lack of responses to what I think is a really interesting study report. I appreciate the historical insight you bring to this. I have also been wondering about the connection between recieving The Belhar Confession as a gift/ecumenical confession and enacting it's impulses in the very practical ways demonstrated by this study committee report. Orthopraxis alongside orthodoxy. Who woulda thunk it?!?
Posted in: Keeping the Main Thing the Main Thing
Originally, I don't think this post followed on the heels of the one about re-studying to advise the church on homosexuality. That changes whether I thought it would recieve more or fewer hits. ;-)
Posted in: Wag the Dog
That's a really interesting point about "a scarcity mentality." I don't want us plotting our future from a place of anxiety, fear or lack of trust in God's provision. AND I want us to be wise, recognizing that at some point, the top gets so heavy it begins to crush what is underneath it. I don't know how to reconcile these two thoughts, though both are important to me.
Posted in: Agenda for Synod Review (May Contain Spoilers)
no thank you.