AKA Dr. Raymond A. Blacketer. Reformation scholar, sometime professor, native Californian, lover of the Reformed confessions, brought into the Christian Reformed Church through evangelism. Formerly pastor of Neerlandia CRC in Northern Alberta, Canada, and First Cutlerville CRC, Byron Center. Currently working as a theological editor and translator.
The twitter remarks seem particularly unhelpful and also condescending; ironically, I think they manifest what they purport to critique. This topic is not only legitimate (overtures are coming to Synod) but also profoundly important (how can we live and work together with our differences? Can we do so? Does how we do so contribute or detract from our witness to the world?) It's easy to bash others while simultaneously broadcasting an air of spiritual superiority, especially in 140 characters.
If you want to compare being female to being homosexual, which is a dubious move. So that's one way in which it doesn't "work" for me. The CRCNA holds, along with the bulk of orthodox Christianity, that homosexuality is a disordered form of sexuality (leaving aside the excruciatingly difficult pastoral issues for the moment). One would not want to say that femininity is a disordered form of gender, or a result of sin, would one?
As for the usual pessimistic prognostications of the CRC's inevitable slide into mainline liberalism, witness Synod 2012.
It sounds, frankly, like typical, boring CRC-bashing to me; and this close to mother's day, it's disrespectful to bash someone's mother (mater ecclesia, see Calvin, Institutes, 4.1.1-4). If you came from the GKN, I can see how you might fear this outcome for the CRC, and in the past I have had that same doom-and-gloom attitude, which I think is less than faithful and less than God-honoring, since God is sovereign over his church. I have many relatives by marriage who are members of the GKN, now the PKN. Moreover, the baneful influence of GKN theology from the 1960's has faded from our seminary and many younger pastors, I think, have an appreciation for biblical faithfulness and the confessions that I find encouraging.
My close colleague in the Ev. Lutheran Church in Canada has now joined NALC, the more confessional denomination, and were I in his place I would probably do the same. The ELCIC not only blesses homosexual unions, but has also arguably jettisoned its confessional Lutheran principles in doing so, defining marriage in purely voluntary terms (my colleague shared their report with me). They are also quickly becoming extinct. And our cousins the presbyterians are leaving the PCUSA for ECO, because they are either more confessional, or maybe more likely, because they are more "evangelical." If such a turn of events does happen in the CRCNA, I think there will be a mass exodus from the denomination, not a realignment of classes. That is a church dividing issue. But this misses the point. If the ordination of women is considered such an extreme fault, equivalent to making homosexual unions equivalent to marriage, why remain in the allegedly apostate and ostensibly ever-more-liberal CRCNA?
It's possible, just maybe, that the CRCNA is not yet apostate, is not heading inevitably toward the rejection of its confessional moorings, is not rushing to be mainline, is not moving to identify the gospel with left-wing politics. I think there is a segment of the denomination that would want to push us in that direction, but there is also a segment that would push us in a fundamentalist direction and identify the gospel with right-wing politics.
Because I am very confessionally oriented, I don't want to see the one wing of the church moving toward polarization or schism, and I see this as an intermediate step along that direction.
I once had a member of the URC, who was unhappy about her own congregation and her pastor (who was eventually forced out of the URC for his extreme views), complain to me about the "liberalism" of the CRC. I asked her what she meant. She said "the women in office." I replied, "we might be in error on that matter, but your pastor is preaching theonomy, which is a heresy." And this URC woman, quite well-versed in theology, had to concede the point. We got along pretty famously after that. So, there are various degrees of error. The question for complementarians, who see ordaining women as an error, is whether this error (as they see it) rises to the level of apostasy or a willful denial of biblical authority. If so, they have no business remaining in the CRCNA. If instead they view egalitarians (these terms are both distasteful in my opinion) as sisters and brothers with whom they disagree, that's quite different.
Can complementarians in the CRC also muster up enough humility to give a female colleague the respect due to the office, even if they believe that said female colleage is irregularly ordained to such an office? I don't know that we as a church body have ever been challenged to consider that question.
In any case, on mothers' day, though it's just a Hallmark holiday, let's respect and honor our spiritual mother. It is our obligation under the fifth commandment. My spiritual mother is the CRCNA, part of the church catholic, who evangelized my family into the faith, baptized me into the Christian family, and nurtured me in the Reformed faith.
Thank you, Meg. There is complementariansm, and then there is the way one expresses it. I wonder if this recent post on CT may be quite relevant to this point. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/mobile/hermeneutics.html?id=105509. My opinion is that when we Balkanize ourselves into affinity classes, we all lose. We lose the opportunity to disagree with civility. We lose the benefit of radically different perspectives. Synod has rejected this before and it should do so again.
Thank you for that fascinating reflection, Mark. As a (part-time) academic theologian and full-time pastor, I can personally imagine some of what Küng fears, how he laments his decline, and how he will grieve his loss. On the other hand, I would expect one of the most famous (sometimes infamous) theologians of the twentieth century to understand that lament and grief are part of living in a world groaning for its redemption, and that suffering can at least potentially be or become redemptive; not least of all in the Suffering Servant himself, but also how our suffering can in some mysterious way participate in Christ’s sufferings. I think of the very difficult-to-interpret saying of Paul, Colossians 1:24: “Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.” Not that there is something lacking in the value of Christ’s suffering, but that we also take up our cross, die with Christ, and also experience fleeting moments of resurrection and new life. The NLT might be on the right track when it renders this verse “I am glad when I suffer for you in my body, for I am participating in the sufferings of Christ that continue for his body, the church.” Suffering is a profound mystery, one that apparently eludes this theologian (presuming his views are rightly represented, and presuming that his utterances are deliberate reflections and not just cries of desperation.) Being united with Christ also means that our suffering, perhaps even what we think of as “natural” suffering, can at least potentially take on a meaning and significance that cannot be found in a naturalistic worldview, one with which Küng found himself far too comfortable. The utterly secular, vacuously utilitarian view of suffering that Küng appears to buy into is astounding and disappointing. It is not, however, terribly surprising to those familiar with his rationalistic theological method, which exegetes culture more than listening to Scripture, and seeks to defensively justify Christian faith to a secular world, when the Christian faith rather stands as a prophetic critique of secular, materialistic, utilitarian—in a word, hopeless naturalism. When I was in seminary I read his 800 page book Does God Exist? and at the end I still had no idea what Küng’s answer was. I hope for his sake, and perhaps for the sake of those who admired his culturally respectable, but scripturally inadequate and, it seems, spiritually comfortless theological work, that he comes to a deeper, more authentically biblical, more genuinely spiritual view of the matter, and also that he comes to see how harmful and dismissive his statements are for those who don’t have perfect minds and bodies. And perhaps this is not Hans Küng at his best, but in his weakness, and perhaps were he in a better state of mind and spirit he would not say such things.
The re-baptism analogy does not work at all. The question is: can we live with each other with respect and charity despite our disagreements on a non-confessional issue? Forming an affinity classis seems to be an easy way out, in contrast to the difficult work of making the effort to work together.
These overtures, if approved, would be a loss for the classes and for the congregations that want to leave those classes. We need each other, particularly when we disagree. More "conservative" classes need the voice of more "progressive" congregations, and vice-versa (though I abhor those terms). The congregations should know that their voice is important in their respective classes. If they think their classes are "liberal," (I don't know that they think this or not), they should realize that their departure would leave these classes even more unbalanced (if in fact that is the case, which is always a very subjective judgment). I sympathize with the feeling of being a minority voice in classis; it is challenging and sometimes discouraging. But it is important to work through that and see the bigger picture: conflict is not always a bad thing; it can be an impetus to creativity, especially when that conflict is civil and takes the form of constructive and well-reasoned disagreement, and not personal attack. Don't give in to the narrative that the church is being taken over by rabid fundamentalists or raving liberals (I say, having committed this sin myself).
John, with respect, that argument cuts off all discussion, because it makes every theological issue a confessional issue. In that case, the supralapsarians at Dordt could have broken fellowship with infralapsarians. Moreover, the claim that WICO is not a confessional issue, while re-baptism is, is not a personal opinion; it is the official position of the CRCNA. If it were a confessional issue, it would be grounds for leaving the CRCNA. Some have seen it as such and have left the CRCNA.
This argument also implies a harsh judgment on those with whom one disagrees, namely, that they "ignore" or "deny" scriptural precepts. If they did so, they would be worthy of rebuke and discipline. But what if they honestly disagree about the interpretation of scripture, without any wicked intent?
Some guy named John Calvin wrote about the fact that equally diligent and pious persons disagree on the interpretation of scripture, in his dedicatory epistle for his commentary on Romans:
“It is, therefore, presumptuous and almost blasphemous to turn the meaning of scripture around without due care, as though it were some game that we were playing. And yet many scholars have done this at one time. We, have continually found, however, that there is by no means universal agreement even among those who have not been found wanting in zeal for godliness, or piety and moderation in discussing the mysteries of God. God has never so blessed His servants that they each possessed full and perfect knowledge of every part of their subject. It is clear that His purpose in so limiting our knowledge was first that we should be kept humble, and also that we should continue to have dealings with our fellows. Even though it were otherwise highly desirable, we are not to look in the present life for lasting agreement among us on the exposition of passages of scripture. When, therefore, we depart from the views of our predecessors, we are not to be stimulated by any passion for innovation, impelled by any desire to slander others, aroused by any hatred, or prompted by any ambition.”
I hope that we don't accuse those with whom we disagree with presumption and blasphemy, or with playing games with scripture. People honestly struggle with the biblical text and come to different conclusions. I hope that we "continue to have dealings with our fellows," despite our differences.
Regarding "the likes of Piper," well, Piper is very popular among some of our most conservative members. He has some valuable contributions on topics like desiring God and finding joy in God, but I find he often lacks pastoral sensitivity. But the connection is this: Why does the presence of women at classis create an intolerable scandal for some complementarians, in the same way that Piper can read a commentary by a woman but he can't tolerate seeing her offensive female body when she is in a teaching (or pastoral or elder) role? And why can the presence of women be tolerated at synod but not at classis? I work with clergy from other denominations with whom I disagree about a great many things, and yet I still work with them. I have attended classis meetings with persons who, in my estimation, have little use for our Reformed confessions and our denominational covenant in the Church Order, yet I still attend classis meetings. Give me a confessionally Reformed female colleague / elder over a wishy-washy liberal (or emergent or generically evangelical-Fundamentalist) man any day.
That website is engaging in gossip and anonymous accusations, that is, they are engaging in abusive speech in the name of countering abuse. They may have good intentions but the execution is sorely lacking in integrity and hypocritical. Clearly they are unaware of our Safe Church ministry and the safe church teams of our classes and the policies of our individual congregations. I found the site exquisitely unhelpful, indeed, unjustly harmful to our church's reputation, in the way that it bears false witness against the church, leveling vague accusations against the church, allegedly up to the synodical level. Of course, we are just as prone to abuse in our churches as any other, and prone to hide it, etc, but we have also made very intentional and proactive efforts to prevent and respond to abuse. To smear the whole CRCNA in this manner is contemptible.
Our sign has been without power for over a week, and I don't miss it at all. I don't miss the simplistic moralisms, the guilt trips, the superior sneering at those unchurched motorists who drive by every day. Not all of the sayings were of that nature, but far too many were. Our church sign is some kind of a witness, but too often it is negative and ineffective, perhaps even counter-productive in reaching out with anything approximating "good news." This post is a reminder that as pastor I have to take control of this and put it back into the hands of those who think about our outreach. It is also a reminder that such signs have to be part of a well-considered, intentional ministry to our community. Our sign was simply donated by a member, with no mandate or reflection upon how it would be used, and since it was donated, we presume we have to use it, right? I will be looking forward to the next installment, on carefully choosing captions. But our sign is technogically limited; it can only display one short line at a time, which means people driving by see one half of a message, and have to crane their necks to see the first or second part...not exactly a safe situation. I would prefer the time and date and "Welcome to our Worship" to what we have had. But I have not put it high on my priority list; this year I won't have that excuse any more. I think the first rule with these signs has to be "do no harm."
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
The twitter remarks seem particularly unhelpful and also condescending; ironically, I think they manifest what they purport to critique. This topic is not only legitimate (overtures are coming to Synod) but also profoundly important (how can we live and work together with our differences? Can we do so? Does how we do so contribute or detract from our witness to the world?) It's easy to bash others while simultaneously broadcasting an air of spiritual superiority, especially in 140 characters.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
That's why it didn't make sense to me. I thought it was about this thread specifically. Never mind.
Do we have the capability of deleting our own comments?
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
If you want to compare being female to being homosexual, which is a dubious move. So that's one way in which it doesn't "work" for me. The CRCNA holds, along with the bulk of orthodox Christianity, that homosexuality is a disordered form of sexuality (leaving aside the excruciatingly difficult pastoral issues for the moment). One would not want to say that femininity is a disordered form of gender, or a result of sin, would one?
As for the usual pessimistic prognostications of the CRC's inevitable slide into mainline liberalism, witness Synod 2012.
It sounds, frankly, like typical, boring CRC-bashing to me; and this close to mother's day, it's disrespectful to bash someone's mother (mater ecclesia, see Calvin, Institutes, 4.1.1-4). If you came from the GKN, I can see how you might fear this outcome for the CRC, and in the past I have had that same doom-and-gloom attitude, which I think is less than faithful and less than God-honoring, since God is sovereign over his church. I have many relatives by marriage who are members of the GKN, now the PKN. Moreover, the baneful influence of GKN theology from the 1960's has faded from our seminary and many younger pastors, I think, have an appreciation for biblical faithfulness and the confessions that I find encouraging.
My close colleague in the Ev. Lutheran Church in Canada has now joined NALC, the more confessional denomination, and were I in his place I would probably do the same. The ELCIC not only blesses homosexual unions, but has also arguably jettisoned its confessional Lutheran principles in doing so, defining marriage in purely voluntary terms (my colleague shared their report with me). They are also quickly becoming extinct. And our cousins the presbyterians are leaving the PCUSA for ECO, because they are either more confessional, or maybe more likely, because they are more "evangelical." If such a turn of events does happen in the CRCNA, I think there will be a mass exodus from the denomination, not a realignment of classes. That is a church dividing issue. But this misses the point. If the ordination of women is considered such an extreme fault, equivalent to making homosexual unions equivalent to marriage, why remain in the allegedly apostate and ostensibly ever-more-liberal CRCNA?
It's possible, just maybe, that the CRCNA is not yet apostate, is not heading inevitably toward the rejection of its confessional moorings, is not rushing to be mainline, is not moving to identify the gospel with left-wing politics. I think there is a segment of the denomination that would want to push us in that direction, but there is also a segment that would push us in a fundamentalist direction and identify the gospel with right-wing politics.
Because I am very confessionally oriented, I don't want to see the one wing of the church moving toward polarization or schism, and I see this as an intermediate step along that direction.
I once had a member of the URC, who was unhappy about her own congregation and her pastor (who was eventually forced out of the URC for his extreme views), complain to me about the "liberalism" of the CRC. I asked her what she meant. She said "the women in office." I replied, "we might be in error on that matter, but your pastor is preaching theonomy, which is a heresy." And this URC woman, quite well-versed in theology, had to concede the point. We got along pretty famously after that. So, there are various degrees of error. The question for complementarians, who see ordaining women as an error, is whether this error (as they see it) rises to the level of apostasy or a willful denial of biblical authority. If so, they have no business remaining in the CRCNA. If instead they view egalitarians (these terms are both distasteful in my opinion) as sisters and brothers with whom they disagree, that's quite different.
Can complementarians in the CRC also muster up enough humility to give a female colleague the respect due to the office, even if they believe that said female colleage is irregularly ordained to such an office? I don't know that we as a church body have ever been challenged to consider that question.
In any case, on mothers' day, though it's just a Hallmark holiday, let's respect and honor our spiritual mother. It is our obligation under the fifth commandment. My spiritual mother is the CRCNA, part of the church catholic, who evangelized my family into the faith, baptized me into the Christian family, and nurtured me in the Reformed faith.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
Thank you for your clarification; it is all too easy to misread someone's posts online. Hartelijk bedank.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
Thank you, Meg. There is complementariansm, and then there is the way one expresses it. I wonder if this recent post on CT may be quite relevant to this point. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/mobile/hermeneutics.html?id=105509. My opinion is that when we Balkanize ourselves into affinity classes, we all lose. We lose the opportunity to disagree with civility. We lose the benefit of radically different perspectives. Synod has rejected this before and it should do so again.
Posted in: Hans Küng Prefers Death to Disability
Thank you for that fascinating reflection, Mark. As a (part-time) academic theologian and full-time pastor, I can personally imagine some of what Küng fears, how he laments his decline, and how he will grieve his loss. On the other hand, I would expect one of the most famous (sometimes infamous) theologians of the twentieth century to understand that lament and grief are part of living in a world groaning for its redemption, and that suffering can at least potentially be or become redemptive; not least of all in the Suffering Servant himself, but also how our suffering can in some mysterious way participate in Christ’s sufferings. I think of the very difficult-to-interpret saying of Paul, Colossians 1:24: “Now I rejoice in what I am suffering for you, and I fill up in my flesh what is still lacking in regard to Christ’s afflictions, for the sake of his body, which is the church.” Not that there is something lacking in the value of Christ’s suffering, but that we also take up our cross, die with Christ, and also experience fleeting moments of resurrection and new life. The NLT might be on the right track when it renders this verse “I am glad when I suffer for you in my body, for I am participating in the sufferings of Christ that continue for his body, the church.” Suffering is a profound mystery, one that apparently eludes this theologian (presuming his views are rightly represented, and presuming that his utterances are deliberate reflections and not just cries of desperation.) Being united with Christ also means that our suffering, perhaps even what we think of as “natural” suffering, can at least potentially take on a meaning and significance that cannot be found in a naturalistic worldview, one with which Küng found himself far too comfortable. The utterly secular, vacuously utilitarian view of suffering that Küng appears to buy into is astounding and disappointing. It is not, however, terribly surprising to those familiar with his rationalistic theological method, which exegetes culture more than listening to Scripture, and seeks to defensively justify Christian faith to a secular world, when the Christian faith rather stands as a prophetic critique of secular, materialistic, utilitarian—in a word, hopeless naturalism. When I was in seminary I read his 800 page book Does God Exist? and at the end I still had no idea what Küng’s answer was. I hope for his sake, and perhaps for the sake of those who admired his culturally respectable, but scripturally inadequate and, it seems, spiritually comfortless theological work, that he comes to a deeper, more authentically biblical, more genuinely spiritual view of the matter, and also that he comes to see how harmful and dismissive his statements are for those who don’t have perfect minds and bodies. And perhaps this is not Hans Küng at his best, but in his weakness, and perhaps were he in a better state of mind and spirit he would not say such things.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
The re-baptism analogy does not work at all. The question is: can we live with each other with respect and charity despite our disagreements on a non-confessional issue? Forming an affinity classis seems to be an easy way out, in contrast to the difficult work of making the effort to work together.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
These overtures, if approved, would be a loss for the classes and for the congregations that want to leave those classes. We need each other, particularly when we disagree. More "conservative" classes need the voice of more "progressive" congregations, and vice-versa (though I abhor those terms). The congregations should know that their voice is important in their respective classes. If they think their classes are "liberal," (I don't know that they think this or not), they should realize that their departure would leave these classes even more unbalanced (if in fact that is the case, which is always a very subjective judgment). I sympathize with the feeling of being a minority voice in classis; it is challenging and sometimes discouraging. But it is important to work through that and see the bigger picture: conflict is not always a bad thing; it can be an impetus to creativity, especially when that conflict is civil and takes the form of constructive and well-reasoned disagreement, and not personal attack. Don't give in to the narrative that the church is being taken over by rabid fundamentalists or raving liberals (I say, having committed this sin myself).
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
John, with respect, that argument cuts off all discussion, because it makes every theological issue a confessional issue. In that case, the supralapsarians at Dordt could have broken fellowship with infralapsarians. Moreover, the claim that WICO is not a confessional issue, while re-baptism is, is not a personal opinion; it is the official position of the CRCNA. If it were a confessional issue, it would be grounds for leaving the CRCNA. Some have seen it as such and have left the CRCNA.
This argument also implies a harsh judgment on those with whom one disagrees, namely, that they "ignore" or "deny" scriptural precepts. If they did so, they would be worthy of rebuke and discipline. But what if they honestly disagree about the interpretation of scripture, without any wicked intent?
Some guy named John Calvin wrote about the fact that equally diligent and pious persons disagree on the interpretation of scripture, in his dedicatory epistle for his commentary on Romans:
“It is, therefore, presumptuous and almost blasphemous to turn the meaning of scripture around without due care, as though it were some game that we were playing. And yet many scholars have done this at one time. We, have continually found, however, that there is by no means universal agreement even among those who have not been found wanting in zeal for godliness, or piety and moderation in discussing the mysteries of God. God has never so blessed His servants that they each possessed full and perfect knowledge of every part of their subject. It is clear that His purpose in so limiting our knowledge was first that we should be kept humble, and also that we should continue to have dealings with our fellows. Even though it were otherwise highly desirable, we are not to look in the present life for lasting agreement among us on the exposition of passages of scripture. When, therefore, we depart from the views of our predecessors, we are not to be stimulated by any passion for innovation, impelled by any desire to slander others, aroused by any hatred, or prompted by any ambition.”
I hope that we don't accuse those with whom we disagree with presumption and blasphemy, or with playing games with scripture. People honestly struggle with the biblical text and come to different conclusions. I hope that we "continue to have dealings with our fellows," despite our differences.
Posted in: Overtures 3 & 4: Laying Out the Debate
Regarding "the likes of Piper," well, Piper is very popular among some of our most conservative members. He has some valuable contributions on topics like desiring God and finding joy in God, but I find he often lacks pastoral sensitivity. But the connection is this: Why does the presence of women at classis create an intolerable scandal for some complementarians, in the same way that Piper can read a commentary by a woman but he can't tolerate seeing her offensive female body when she is in a teaching (or pastoral or elder) role? And why can the presence of women be tolerated at synod but not at classis? I work with clergy from other denominations with whom I disagree about a great many things, and yet I still work with them. I have attended classis meetings with persons who, in my estimation, have little use for our Reformed confessions and our denominational covenant in the Church Order, yet I still attend classis meetings. Give me a confessionally Reformed female colleague / elder over a wishy-washy liberal (or emergent or generically evangelical-Fundamentalist) man any day.
Posted in: The CRCNA Makes the List
That website is engaging in gossip and anonymous accusations, that is, they are engaging in abusive speech in the name of countering abuse. They may have good intentions but the execution is sorely lacking in integrity and hypocritical. Clearly they are unaware of our Safe Church ministry and the safe church teams of our classes and the policies of our individual congregations. I found the site exquisitely unhelpful, indeed, unjustly harmful to our church's reputation, in the way that it bears false witness against the church, leveling vague accusations against the church, allegedly up to the synodical level. Of course, we are just as prone to abuse in our churches as any other, and prone to hide it, etc, but we have also made very intentional and proactive efforts to prevent and respond to abuse. To smear the whole CRCNA in this manner is contemptible.
Posted in: On Church Signs
Our sign has been without power for over a week, and I don't miss it at all. I don't miss the simplistic moralisms, the guilt trips, the superior sneering at those unchurched motorists who drive by every day. Not all of the sayings were of that nature, but far too many were. Our church sign is some kind of a witness, but too often it is negative and ineffective, perhaps even counter-productive in reaching out with anything approximating "good news." This post is a reminder that as pastor I have to take control of this and put it back into the hands of those who think about our outreach. It is also a reminder that such signs have to be part of a well-considered, intentional ministry to our community. Our sign was simply donated by a member, with no mandate or reflection upon how it would be used, and since it was donated, we presume we have to use it, right? I will be looking forward to the next installment, on carefully choosing captions. But our sign is technogically limited; it can only display one short line at a time, which means people driving by see one half of a message, and have to crane their necks to see the first or second part...not exactly a safe situation. I would prefer the time and date and "Welcome to our Worship" to what we have had. But I have not put it high on my priority list; this year I won't have that excuse any more. I think the first rule with these signs has to be "do no harm."