Skip to main content

Paul,

Forgive me if this has been addressed somewhere already but I have a question about what you are writing here. Do you believe that the complementarian view is based on culture? If the reason women officebearers are not forced upon all classes is because of differing cultures, then does that imply complementarians are complementarian because of their culture? It seems that the more these differing views are seen as cultural, the more it can be said that complementarians are just prejudiced and misogynistic.

Aaron Vriesman on May 1, 2012

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

Antonio,

I'm not an expert on Pauline literature to understand his real or perceived discrepancies. The statements you post are problematic and untenable however. For example, claiming that Paul contradicts himself implies that the Bible contradicts itself, which then implies that the Bible is untrustworthy since it says one thing and then the opposite. These claims, if pressed, lead to a position where we as fallible humans decide which verses of the Bible are valid/correct/inspiried and which are "Paul being his contradictory self."

Aaron Vriesman on May 1, 2012

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

Dawn,

Do you believe that the CRC, with two equally valid positions on women in office, can indeed move forward in a productive way without either side eventually compromising or caving in?

Aaron Vriesman on May 1, 2012

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

Antonio,

If "Jesus" was not a revolutionary but "Christ" was indeed a revolutionary, then you must be talking about two different persons in such a way that Jesus Christ had a split-personality disorder. This is a denial of the Ecumenical Creeds, which the CRC stands on.

Aaron Vriesman on May 16, 2012

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

Exactly!

I can name quite a few women who wouldn't want to be included as you say.

Rights and power seem to be everything in mainstream culture and unfortunately in the church.

Going off of what Dawn is suggesting, it seems the CRC has bigger problems than the role and structure of classis. The CRC as an organization has become very top-heavy and it weighs down all the operations. How many offices do we need at 2850? Every office means more ministry shares, more snailmail and email, more groups vying for churches' attention. As opposed to what Michael Bentley said, the need is for less structures. (Sorry Mike, I seem to agree with you on a lot of topics but maybe not his one.) This might be why non-denominational churches are doing so well. They don't have anything to do except worship together and minister to their communities. I am not advocating for zero structures and offices because that creates different problems, but a thinning out would be beneficial. More attention, money and time on a congregation's own community translates into more effective ministry. Just a thought.

Aaron Vriesman on May 21, 2012

In reply to by anonymous_stub (not verified)

Sorry about getting the thread off track.

You're exactly right about "self-perpetuating" and "broad authorization requests." One example: Someone from one office recently replied to a concern about endorsing the "faithful budget initiative" in Washington DC, (which is partisan politics at its worst, essentially advocating for the Democratic Party platform,) by simply stating it is within their synodical mandate to make such an endorsement. Upon reading the mandate, the word "broad" surely comes to mind. Who knows how many CRC Democrats there are in the USA, but here at North Blendon there is maybe one out of 380. Moreover, West Michigan is the most Republican area in the entire state, and NW Iowa is also very "red" on the map. It seems safe to say that this one office doesn't care that huge cross sections of the denomination have a different view about how the government should address poverty, etc.

The connection between 2850 and members grows more thin.

No special strategy from me. Just the general showing interest in people, asking them questions about what they are interested in, letting them talk about what excites them most.

I agree with John:

"Relating everything to color is very primitive way of evaluating anything, and a sad commentary on our perception of diversity"

I can see the motive of wanting a good cross section of the denominational makeup to be represented at synod. However, it seems that this motive of diversity is based on mere appearances. True diversity entails pursuing God through Jesus Christ, in whom there is neither Jew nor Greek, barbarian or Scythian (Gal. 3:26; Col. 3:11). It appears as though some are simply pursuing diversity in appearance alone, which Scripture describes as contrary to the policy of God himself, who does not show favoritism based on race or appearances of any kind (Ac. 10:34; Rom. 2:11, 10:12; Gal. 2:6). Rather, it is we humans who judge people by external appearances (1Sam. 16:7, John 7:24). In this way, making a qualification of the color of flesh is symptomatic of the flesh as opposed to the Spirit. Leadership of the church is to be made on the content of a person’s character (Ac. 1:24), not the color of skin, even as Martin Luther King once stated so well.

Perhaps someone can help me understand the obsession with diversity of appearance.

We want to hear from you.

Connect to The Network and add your own question, blog, resource, or job.

Add Your Post