As several folks have been engaging with Goheen's point that we need to pay attention to the global church, let me offer this related observation.
I cannot think of any doctrine / ethic / interpretation that the global AND historic church has been more unified on than the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Across traditions, denominations, cultures, Eastern church, Western church, charismatic, mainline, the church has agreed on the definition of marriage. Not so for other matters--eschatology, sacraments, doctrine of God, doctrine of Christ, pneumatology, to list a few. These have all brokered division, debate, and disagreement throughout church history. But not marriage (please correct me if I'm wrong--yes, some debates revolved around polygamy but it was always challenged and eventually, remarkably in fact, given the plain reading of the OT, condemned). I'm not aware of any time in the history of the church when people were reading the Bible and arguing for an affirmation of same-sex marriage. A strong argument can be made that the issue of male-female marriage has been one of churches most commonly held beliefs.
Because some will link the church's changing position on slavery and woman in leadership with a changing position on marriage, let me add this observation. The church was not historically unified on these issues like it has been on marriage. Tom Holland, in his book Dominion, makes this point very clearly. Going back well into the early centuries of church history, church leaders were arguing for the emancipation of slaves and the inclusion of women in church leadership. Unlike the redefinition of marriage, these issues have had a long history of debate.
It is only in the last 50 years or so, shortly after what many have called the sexual revolution, that a very small minority of today's global church has even entertained the idea of affirming marriage between two men or two women.
The voice of the global church AND the historic church is weighty and should not be dismissed with the phrase "climate of opinion."
Your argument reminds me of the argument for allowing younger and younger children to transition. If more children are freely allowed to change their gender identity and are universally accepted in society, then their suicide rates will drop, their mental health issues will decrease and, presumably, they can "faithfully" live their lives.
But more to your point, extending the logic you lay out, what about those who are polyamorous? Should polyamorous (three or more adults living in a life-long, deeply committed, (Christ-centered?) union) "marriages" be accepted, presumably they too could be examples of "faithful" polyamorous Christian family units. If removing the male-female binary from marriage is ok, why not the two-ness?
As I see it Paul, your experience of "faithful same-sex couples" drives you to reinterpret (revise) Scripture, placing the authority of human experience at the same level as (or higher than) Biblical authority. I am sure I will be able to show you those who experience gender transitioning and those who experience polyamorous love who truly believe they are faithful to Christ and his inclusive love. Will we then be compelled to go back and reinterpret (revise) Scripture on this too? If you can interpret the Bible to affirm same-sex marriage, you can employ that same (new) hermeneutic to affirm transgenderism, polyamory, and much more.
Paul - you and I are having this conversation in two different threads. Because I replied to this comment, at least in part, on that other thread, I'll include part of what I wrote there, here:
"Forgive me, Paul, if I came off as accusatory. That wasn't my intent. I did say, "as I see it", meaning it looks to me like the authority of human experience is being raised to a place that is causing certain texts to be reinterpreted, re-examined, though I think revised is a better word. The definition of marriage being the most obvious. You seem to be re-examining Genesis and Jesus' own words on marriage in the light of human experience. I believe the Bible's definition of marriage is clear. And the global, historical church has believed that for a very long time. In my opinion, the Bible itself leaves no room for us to say marriage can be between two men or two women. So, as I see it, in order to change that definition, you have to elevate human experience to a equal or higher authority than Scripture. That's what I'm suggesting....in an "iron-sharpens-iron sort of way." :) "
Paul I heartily concur with the importance of words and 'I' language. Your friendly admonishment has been received.
I agree that on many issues over the course of church history the church as reinterpreted/revisited various texts of the Bible and come to different conclusions. Semper Reformanda. Amen. But as I see it, this has always taken place, especially on ethical matters, only when the Bible itself opens that door for a reinterpretation.
That was certainly true for the issue of holding slaves and women in leadership. These issues have a long history of debate in the church, and in both cases, the Bible itself opened the door for reinterpretation. I would argue that this was true for a new understanding of Genesis 1 & 2--but I won't go into that here. This imho is a vital point: the Bible itself opened the door for reinterpretation.
Now to the Scripture's understanding of / definition of marriage. I cannot see anywhere in Scripture where a door is opened to redefining marriage or expanding marriage to include same-sex marriages. The institution of marriage is most clearly taught in Gen. 2 and in Mk 10 and Matt.19, though of course Paul explains it (Eph.5), and it runs as a basic theme throughout the Bible. In what text / passage, Paul, do you see the idea of marriage including two men or two women being opened up or affirmed?
This is why, perhaps mistakenly, I used the word revised. It feels to me like Scripture's teaching on marriage is being revised. I'm fine with using the word 'reinterpreted'. My question is where does the Bible itself invite that reinterpretation?
Because, and I say this respectfully, from my perch it seems that if the Bible doesn't at least open the door to that reinterpretation, then it must be human experience or 'psychology' (general revelation) that is being elevated to require Scripture's reinterpretation.
And one more thing, Paul, I do look forward to your response to my claim that this emphasis on human experience will also have a direct impact on how some people interpret the Bible to affirm transgenderism and/or polyamory.
My how this thread has grown since I last read it! Thank you Henry, for initiating this important conversation. You have blessed our denomination with much wise counsel over the years.
Regrettably, I cannot see your way forward on this issue--namely, receive the report as pastoral advice, and make every effort to stay together by leaving local Council's to decide on what's permitted, and what's disciplined with respect to SSM--as being tenable or wise.
This is not an interpretive issue, its a matter of orthodoxy. As John Cooper has stated, the revisionist view employs a new hermeneutic, a way of reading Scripture that opens up all kinds of novel interpretations on any number of issues, including the issue of whether a biological male can decide to become female (I raise that because mostly what we are talking about in this thread is SSM....the culture has moved way past that issue and if the Bible allows us to remove the male/female binary out of marriage, it surely allows us to remove it from personhood as well). Years ago John Stott predicted this would become the benchmark between orthodoxy and heresy. NT Wright sees this as evidence of the unraveling of culture under idolatry.
Many people in the CRC, myself included, are deeply convinced that what these esteemed folks have stated is true. That's not too mention the countless others over the millennia of church history and in global church today that hold this view! In fact, historically, it's hard to think of a teaching / position of the global church that has had more agreement than the definition of marriage as being between and man and a woman.
It is untenable to believe that a denomination can meaningfully stay together in the presence of such strong disagreement. And I don't think any denomination to date that has tried has shown us it can. They've all experienced a significant exodus.
I agree with Henry, church "splits" have been / are deeply painful.
Let's think of a way forward that first changes the vocabulary. Avoid the language and spirit of "split" or "schism" and use a more gracious term, like "realignment". Imagine the powerful witness it would be to the watching world if two denominations like the RCA and CRC amicably negotiated a gracious realignment of churches, classes?, schools?, for the sake of avoiding a schism and working towards a solution that allowed both sides to move forward in their understanding of Biblical faithfulness.
Admittedly, where this realignment will be most difficult is in Classis GRE; a mostly "big tent" Classis where many of our denominational employees are located (CRCNA, Calvin College). It will take lots of prayerful discussion / negotiation to work through all the politics and logistics.
We have reached an impasse. The CRC needs to take a clear Biblical (traditional) position. Hopefully the RCA will adopt the "big tent" or affirming position (Part of me cringes when I read what I just wrote. How can I hope a denomination adopts heresy? I suppose I've resigned myself to the fact that we are at an impasse and realignment feels more like a cooperative option than a divisive one.)
We'll need lots of clever minds like yours Henry, to help the churches see how this realignment could happen!
BTW, if the RCA maintained the tradition and the CRC went progressive, I'd still be in favour of the realignment. My RCA friends make me think that's a lot less likely.
Debating Scriptural interpretation is no longer useful in the discussions around LGBTQ+ matters. As Cooper (and others) have convincingly stated, those holding an affirming position are using a different hermeneutic than those who maintain the traditional view. Because of this fact, we continue talking past each other. I see it happening in the comments thread of this post.
Because of this I see that the best way forward is to respectfully disagree with each other, pray God's blessing and mercy on each other, and part company. A communion that wishes to have meaningful unity must share basic rules for interpreting the Bible, IMHO.
Why? Well, in this thread we've really only been talking about same-sex marriage--the "LG" part of LGBTQ+. In the culture, the conversation has moved well beyond this issue. The culture is now dealing with issues surrounding the "BTQ+" part. Increasingly it is becoming more and more mainstream to assert that biological sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual proclivity vary independently of each other. In Canada, where I live, through Bill C-16, this view has become law. It's already being taught in some public schools across the country to children as young as 5.
Here's the real issue as I see it: the very same hermeneutic that is used to affirm monogamous same-sex marriage can be used to support the conviction that biological sex and gender vary independently. If you can remove the binary male-female basis from marriage, why not remove the creational male-female distinction altogether?
In my opinion the same hermeneutic that says male-male, female-female marriage is Biblical, can also be used to argue that fluidity in biological sex, gender expression and gender identity is Biblical.
Those holding an affirming view on SSM will inevitably find themselves pulled into a hermeneutical spiral that also affirms fluid, vibrant, and consensual/committed transgender and bisexual and queer and '+' sexual expression.
Eric, I know A1B does, but the church more generally tends to focus on the marriage question. My point is, if you accept same sex marriage, the same hermeneutic will lead you to accept BTQ+ identity and behaviour...... and I wonder if folks who lean in the "Generous Space" direction on this issue realize that the same approach to reading the Bible gets you there.
Take the approach to Scripture that the affirming side uses and you can argue:
- a family of, say 4 or 6 committed bisexual, poly amorous adults in a committed, covenant relationship is Biblically supported.
- that marriages need not be permanent. Gender expression is fluid, proclivities change, so can spouses.
- polyamory among consenting and committed followers of Christ is a Biblical alternative
- sexual intimacy among consenting adults who are not married is acceptable.
- this list goes on.....
People will say, "Andrew, stop using the "slippery slope" defense." Well, I'd ask any on the affirming side to show me the verses that they think would prohibit these behaviours, and I'll provide a scripturally reasoned defense--sprinkled with a reliance on "current 'science', experience, and perceived beneficial outcomes" (language from Cooper paper)--that presents each behaviour as Biblically sanctioned.
Generally, Syd, I agree with your premise that Christians do well to cultivate a posture of "holy uncertainty." I say generally because there are so many situations in life that Scripture doesn't speak to clearly or directly. As a pastor discerns a call, as a student discerns an educational path, as a manager discerns a career path, each do well to humbly and prayerfully enter into a season of "holy uncertainty" allowing the Spirit to lead in ways that may feel uncomfortable or unexpected. Other examples: Can a sincere follower of Christ work in a casino if they feel a genuine call to be Christ's witness there? Might an exceptionally gifted athletic teenager give up the regular Lord's Day gathering because of sports commitments and still be a faithful disciple of Christ who finds Christian community and faith nurture in other ways? How does our denomination deal with its own past in starting and supporting Native American schools and to what degree were they influenced by a subtle form of "ethnic cleansing" that flowed out of the dark side of the Doctrine of Discovery? I think all of these questions require the kind of "holy uncertainty" you describe because Scripture itself makes no clear pronouncements.
What you are arguing is that Scripture may be unclear on its teaching of marriage and homosexual behaviour. What has become increasingly clear to me is this: if Scripture is unclear in these areas it is because the rules for interpreting the Scriptures that people are using are no longer held in common. The hermeneutic that is used to affirm SSM is decidedly different than the one used to uphold a traditional view on marriage (this post is not the place to elaborate on that in detail). If the posture of "holy uncertainty" requires us to hold both hermeneutics in a hoped for Spirit-seasoned tension, it is almost certain to move us along a predetermined trajectory. Why? Because if the agreed upon rules for interpretation are no longer agreed to, then the authority of Scripture--namely how the Bible is to be read and interpreted--is no longer something we hold in common. And the only logical outcome after a season of holy uncertainty has run its course will be to default to the more "open" or less restrictive reading of the Bible. I believe that most denominations that have entered seasons of holy uncertainty, because they believe Scripture may be unclear or can be read in different ways, have followed, or, are following, that trajectory to a more open and/or affirming view (PCUSA, RCA, PCC, to name a few).
Those who hold to the hermeneutic that maintains the traditional view (dare I say, Biblical view.... already many shy away from using the term "Biblical view" because the posture of "holy uncertainty" leads us to believe both positions as Biblical), are deeply concerned that the "new" hermeneutic opens up a way of reading Scripture that calls into question any number of established Biblical teachings.
Great to read all of these helpful comments! Thank you for chiming in! I'm not sure how to keep this conversation going on the Network, but I do intend to follow-up with a number of you to continue learning. I'm also wondering about a possible conference call or webinar format to see if some of us might talk together or share some resources. I'll certainly let all of you know if I pursue that option any further. Would there be any interest in this option?
This past Saturday I led a leadership retreat with all of our elders and deacons in which I introduced the concept of missional communities. The discussion quickly shifted towards "what would implementation look like?" Issues like: does this become another ministry offering among many? what about people who don't want to participate in MC's? how do we build on effective missional witness that is currently happening in our congregation though not connected to a MC?...and several others, were all part of the discussion.
Our leadership quickly caught on that this is a paradigm shifting or culture shifting initiative. I was pleased that in no way did the conversation get "shut-down." No one voiced strong objections or criticism; most all expressed interest and receptivitiy, along with good questions and potential challenges. We agreed to meet again for an extended discussion early in the new year to give time for continued prayer and Spirit led percolation.
I'm wondering if a conference call / webinar style meeting would be helpful for further conversation. I know this is new territory for me and I'd love to hear from others on how this journey is going in other churches. Any suggestions on what the best format might be? I am happy to plan and make happen.
I wonder if folks at the CRC Network might have suggestions on how to facitilate this conversation beyond this post/reply/blog format.
Posted in: Homosexuality and Our Missional Calling
Dr. Goheen wrote this with an eye to CRC pastors, and the broader CRC community. It's first publication is in The Network.
Posted in: Homosexuality and Our Missional Calling
As several folks have been engaging with Goheen's point that we need to pay attention to the global church, let me offer this related observation.
I cannot think of any doctrine / ethic / interpretation that the global AND historic church has been more unified on than the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. Across traditions, denominations, cultures, Eastern church, Western church, charismatic, mainline, the church has agreed on the definition of marriage. Not so for other matters--eschatology, sacraments, doctrine of God, doctrine of Christ, pneumatology, to list a few. These have all brokered division, debate, and disagreement throughout church history. But not marriage (please correct me if I'm wrong--yes, some debates revolved around polygamy but it was always challenged and eventually, remarkably in fact, given the plain reading of the OT, condemned). I'm not aware of any time in the history of the church when people were reading the Bible and arguing for an affirmation of same-sex marriage. A strong argument can be made that the issue of male-female marriage has been one of churches most commonly held beliefs.
Because some will link the church's changing position on slavery and woman in leadership with a changing position on marriage, let me add this observation. The church was not historically unified on these issues like it has been on marriage. Tom Holland, in his book Dominion, makes this point very clearly. Going back well into the early centuries of church history, church leaders were arguing for the emancipation of slaves and the inclusion of women in church leadership. Unlike the redefinition of marriage, these issues have had a long history of debate.
It is only in the last 50 years or so, shortly after what many have called the sexual revolution, that a very small minority of today's global church has even entertained the idea of affirming marriage between two men or two women.
The voice of the global church AND the historic church is weighty and should not be dismissed with the phrase "climate of opinion."
Posted in: Homosexuality and Our Missional Calling
Hey Paul! Nice to see you chime in.
Your argument reminds me of the argument for allowing younger and younger children to transition. If more children are freely allowed to change their gender identity and are universally accepted in society, then their suicide rates will drop, their mental health issues will decrease and, presumably, they can "faithfully" live their lives.
But more to your point, extending the logic you lay out, what about those who are polyamorous? Should polyamorous (three or more adults living in a life-long, deeply committed, (Christ-centered?) union) "marriages" be accepted, presumably they too could be examples of "faithful" polyamorous Christian family units. If removing the male-female binary from marriage is ok, why not the two-ness?
As I see it Paul, your experience of "faithful same-sex couples" drives you to reinterpret (revise) Scripture, placing the authority of human experience at the same level as (or higher than) Biblical authority. I am sure I will be able to show you those who experience gender transitioning and those who experience polyamorous love who truly believe they are faithful to Christ and his inclusive love. Will we then be compelled to go back and reinterpret (revise) Scripture on this too? If you can interpret the Bible to affirm same-sex marriage, you can employ that same (new) hermeneutic to affirm transgenderism, polyamory, and much more.
Posted in: Homosexuality and Our Missional Calling
Paul - you and I are having this conversation in two different threads. Because I replied to this comment, at least in part, on that other thread, I'll include part of what I wrote there, here:
"Forgive me, Paul, if I came off as accusatory. That wasn't my intent. I did say, "as I see it", meaning it looks to me like the authority of human experience is being raised to a place that is causing certain texts to be reinterpreted, re-examined, though I think revised is a better word. The definition of marriage being the most obvious. You seem to be re-examining Genesis and Jesus' own words on marriage in the light of human experience. I believe the Bible's definition of marriage is clear. And the global, historical church has believed that for a very long time. In my opinion, the Bible itself leaves no room for us to say marriage can be between two men or two women. So, as I see it, in order to change that definition, you have to elevate human experience to a equal or higher authority than Scripture. That's what I'm suggesting....in an "iron-sharpens-iron sort of way." :) "
Paul I heartily concur with the importance of words and 'I' language. Your friendly admonishment has been received.
I agree that on many issues over the course of church history the church as reinterpreted/revisited various texts of the Bible and come to different conclusions. Semper Reformanda. Amen. But as I see it, this has always taken place, especially on ethical matters, only when the Bible itself opens that door for a reinterpretation.
That was certainly true for the issue of holding slaves and women in leadership. These issues have a long history of debate in the church, and in both cases, the Bible itself opened the door for reinterpretation. I would argue that this was true for a new understanding of Genesis 1 & 2--but I won't go into that here. This imho is a vital point: the Bible itself opened the door for reinterpretation.
Now to the Scripture's understanding of / definition of marriage. I cannot see anywhere in Scripture where a door is opened to redefining marriage or expanding marriage to include same-sex marriages. The institution of marriage is most clearly taught in Gen. 2 and in Mk 10 and Matt.19, though of course Paul explains it (Eph.5), and it runs as a basic theme throughout the Bible. In what text / passage, Paul, do you see the idea of marriage including two men or two women being opened up or affirmed?
This is why, perhaps mistakenly, I used the word revised. It feels to me like Scripture's teaching on marriage is being revised. I'm fine with using the word 'reinterpreted'. My question is where does the Bible itself invite that reinterpretation?
Because, and I say this respectfully, from my perch it seems that if the Bible doesn't at least open the door to that reinterpretation, then it must be human experience or 'psychology' (general revelation) that is being elevated to require Scripture's reinterpretation.
And one more thing, Paul, I do look forward to your response to my claim that this emphasis on human experience will also have a direct impact on how some people interpret the Bible to affirm transgenderism and/or polyamory.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
My how this thread has grown since I last read it! Thank you Henry, for initiating this important conversation. You have blessed our denomination with much wise counsel over the years.
Regrettably, I cannot see your way forward on this issue--namely, receive the report as pastoral advice, and make every effort to stay together by leaving local Council's to decide on what's permitted, and what's disciplined with respect to SSM--as being tenable or wise.
This is not an interpretive issue, its a matter of orthodoxy. As John Cooper has stated, the revisionist view employs a new hermeneutic, a way of reading Scripture that opens up all kinds of novel interpretations on any number of issues, including the issue of whether a biological male can decide to become female (I raise that because mostly what we are talking about in this thread is SSM....the culture has moved way past that issue and if the Bible allows us to remove the male/female binary out of marriage, it surely allows us to remove it from personhood as well). Years ago John Stott predicted this would become the benchmark between orthodoxy and heresy. NT Wright sees this as evidence of the unraveling of culture under idolatry.
Many people in the CRC, myself included, are deeply convinced that what these esteemed folks have stated is true. That's not too mention the countless others over the millennia of church history and in global church today that hold this view! In fact, historically, it's hard to think of a teaching / position of the global church that has had more agreement than the definition of marriage as being between and man and a woman.
It is untenable to believe that a denomination can meaningfully stay together in the presence of such strong disagreement. And I don't think any denomination to date that has tried has shown us it can. They've all experienced a significant exodus.
I agree with Henry, church "splits" have been / are deeply painful.
Let's think of a way forward that first changes the vocabulary. Avoid the language and spirit of "split" or "schism" and use a more gracious term, like "realignment". Imagine the powerful witness it would be to the watching world if two denominations like the RCA and CRC amicably negotiated a gracious realignment of churches, classes?, schools?, for the sake of avoiding a schism and working towards a solution that allowed both sides to move forward in their understanding of Biblical faithfulness.
Admittedly, where this realignment will be most difficult is in Classis GRE; a mostly "big tent" Classis where many of our denominational employees are located (CRCNA, Calvin College). It will take lots of prayerful discussion / negotiation to work through all the politics and logistics.
We have reached an impasse. The CRC needs to take a clear Biblical (traditional) position. Hopefully the RCA will adopt the "big tent" or affirming position (Part of me cringes when I read what I just wrote. How can I hope a denomination adopts heresy? I suppose I've resigned myself to the fact that we are at an impasse and realignment feels more like a cooperative option than a divisive one.)
We'll need lots of clever minds like yours Henry, to help the churches see how this realignment could happen!
BTW, if the RCA maintained the tradition and the CRC went progressive, I'd still be in favour of the realignment. My RCA friends make me think that's a lot less likely.
Posted in: Should the CRCNA Lobby in Favor of Federal Carbon Tax Legislation?
You're exactly right, Doug. Thank you. OSJ, please pay attention.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Thank you Dan W, for sharing this post.
Dr. John Cooper, retired prof. from Calvin Seminary has written an excellent paper which I heartily recommend: "RESPONSE TO GRE COMMUNICATION RE SAME-SEX MARRIAGE: A “Traditionalist” Contribution to Ongoing Discussion in the CRCNA, John Cooper, Calvin Theological Seminary, revised February 2017"
Debating Scriptural interpretation is no longer useful in the discussions around LGBTQ+ matters. As Cooper (and others) have convincingly stated, those holding an affirming position are using a different hermeneutic than those who maintain the traditional view. Because of this fact, we continue talking past each other. I see it happening in the comments thread of this post.
Because of this I see that the best way forward is to respectfully disagree with each other, pray God's blessing and mercy on each other, and part company. A communion that wishes to have meaningful unity must share basic rules for interpreting the Bible, IMHO.
Why? Well, in this thread we've really only been talking about same-sex marriage--the "LG" part of LGBTQ+. In the culture, the conversation has moved well beyond this issue. The culture is now dealing with issues surrounding the "BTQ+" part. Increasingly it is becoming more and more mainstream to assert that biological sex, gender identity, gender expression, and sexual proclivity vary independently of each other. In Canada, where I live, through Bill C-16, this view has become law. It's already being taught in some public schools across the country to children as young as 5.
Here's the real issue as I see it: the very same hermeneutic that is used to affirm monogamous same-sex marriage can be used to support the conviction that biological sex and gender vary independently. If you can remove the binary male-female basis from marriage, why not remove the creational male-female distinction altogether?
In my opinion the same hermeneutic that says male-male, female-female marriage is Biblical, can also be used to argue that fluidity in biological sex, gender expression and gender identity is Biblical.
Those holding an affirming view on SSM will inevitably find themselves pulled into a hermeneutical spiral that also affirms fluid, vibrant, and consensual/committed transgender and bisexual and queer and '+' sexual expression.
Posted in: Turning the CRC Into an Lgbtq+ Ally
Eric, I know A1B does, but the church more generally tends to focus on the marriage question. My point is, if you accept same sex marriage, the same hermeneutic will lead you to accept BTQ+ identity and behaviour...... and I wonder if folks who lean in the "Generous Space" direction on this issue realize that the same approach to reading the Bible gets you there.
Take the approach to Scripture that the affirming side uses and you can argue:
- a family of, say 4 or 6 committed bisexual, poly amorous adults in a committed, covenant relationship is Biblically supported.
- that marriages need not be permanent. Gender expression is fluid, proclivities change, so can spouses.
- polyamory among consenting and committed followers of Christ is a Biblical alternative
- sexual intimacy among consenting adults who are not married is acceptable.
- this list goes on.....
People will say, "Andrew, stop using the "slippery slope" defense." Well, I'd ask any on the affirming side to show me the verses that they think would prohibit these behaviours, and I'll provide a scripturally reasoned defense--sprinkled with a reliance on "current 'science', experience, and perceived beneficial outcomes" (language from Cooper paper)--that presents each behaviour as Biblically sanctioned.
Posted in: Homosexuality and Holy Uncertainty
Generally, Syd, I agree with your premise that Christians do well to cultivate a posture of "holy uncertainty." I say generally because there are so many situations in life that Scripture doesn't speak to clearly or directly. As a pastor discerns a call, as a student discerns an educational path, as a manager discerns a career path, each do well to humbly and prayerfully enter into a season of "holy uncertainty" allowing the Spirit to lead in ways that may feel uncomfortable or unexpected. Other examples: Can a sincere follower of Christ work in a casino if they feel a genuine call to be Christ's witness there? Might an exceptionally gifted athletic teenager give up the regular Lord's Day gathering because of sports commitments and still be a faithful disciple of Christ who finds Christian community and faith nurture in other ways? How does our denomination deal with its own past in starting and supporting Native American schools and to what degree were they influenced by a subtle form of "ethnic cleansing" that flowed out of the dark side of the Doctrine of Discovery? I think all of these questions require the kind of "holy uncertainty" you describe because Scripture itself makes no clear pronouncements.
What you are arguing is that Scripture may be unclear on its teaching of marriage and homosexual behaviour. What has become increasingly clear to me is this: if Scripture is unclear in these areas it is because the rules for interpreting the Scriptures that people are using are no longer held in common. The hermeneutic that is used to affirm SSM is decidedly different than the one used to uphold a traditional view on marriage (this post is not the place to elaborate on that in detail). If the posture of "holy uncertainty" requires us to hold both hermeneutics in a hoped for Spirit-seasoned tension, it is almost certain to move us along a predetermined trajectory. Why? Because if the agreed upon rules for interpretation are no longer agreed to, then the authority of Scripture--namely how the Bible is to be read and interpreted--is no longer something we hold in common. And the only logical outcome after a season of holy uncertainty has run its course will be to default to the more "open" or less restrictive reading of the Bible. I believe that most denominations that have entered seasons of holy uncertainty, because they believe Scripture may be unclear or can be read in different ways, have followed, or, are following, that trajectory to a more open and/or affirming view (PCUSA, RCA, PCC, to name a few).
Those who hold to the hermeneutic that maintains the traditional view (dare I say, Biblical view.... already many shy away from using the term "Biblical view" because the posture of "holy uncertainty" leads us to believe both positions as Biblical), are deeply concerned that the "new" hermeneutic opens up a way of reading Scripture that calls into question any number of established Biblical teachings.
Posted in: Implementing "Missional Communities" in an Established CRC Setting
Great to read all of these helpful comments! Thank you for chiming in! I'm not sure how to keep this conversation going on the Network, but I do intend to follow-up with a number of you to continue learning. I'm also wondering about a possible conference call or webinar format to see if some of us might talk together or share some resources. I'll certainly let all of you know if I pursue that option any further. Would there be any interest in this option?
Andrew
Posted in: Implementing "Missional Communities" in an Established CRC Setting
I do want to keep this conversation going...
This past Saturday I led a leadership retreat with all of our elders and deacons in which I introduced the concept of missional communities. The discussion quickly shifted towards "what would implementation look like?" Issues like: does this become another ministry offering among many? what about people who don't want to participate in MC's? how do we build on effective missional witness that is currently happening in our congregation though not connected to a MC?...and several others, were all part of the discussion.
Our leadership quickly caught on that this is a paradigm shifting or culture shifting initiative. I was pleased that in no way did the conversation get "shut-down." No one voiced strong objections or criticism; most all expressed interest and receptivitiy, along with good questions and potential challenges. We agreed to meet again for an extended discussion early in the new year to give time for continued prayer and Spirit led percolation.
I'm wondering if a conference call / webinar style meeting would be helpful for further conversation. I know this is new territory for me and I'd love to hear from others on how this journey is going in other churches. Any suggestions on what the best format might be? I am happy to plan and make happen.
I wonder if folks at the CRC Network might have suggestions on how to facitilate this conversation beyond this post/reply/blog format.