Douglas Vrieland

I hesitate to respond,, but here goes:  This posting is all about procedure.  It seems to me the CRC's biggest concern is to protect the institution.  The 2022 decision was motivated more by a desire to reduce the anxiety in the church than to more effectively minister to members of the LBGTQ community (the original reason for the HSR report).  This posting continues that concern for the institution.  Maintaining the institution is certainly important, but I would suggest that Synod has avoided the "macro conversations" in  an attempt to avoid controversy and protect the institution.  Let me suggest three "macro conversations" we need to have:
1. If I understand correctly, the mandate that resulted in the HSR specifically said that the committee was not to re examine Scripture on the issue of homosexuality.  When committee members spoke out publicly against the traditional view, they were censured (correctly, in my view).  But Synod clearly is avoiding re-examining Biblical teaching.  But isn't understanding Biblical teaching the most significant "macro conversation" Synod needs to have?  Is this conversation ever over, or do we need to be humble enough to admit that we see through a glass dimly?  I am not at all convinced, for example, that we in the CRC have understood Romans 1 correctly.  Paul's point is not to provide a lesson on sexual ethics.  His makes his point in Romans 2:1-- when we judge others, we are judging ourselves because we do the same thing!   Any expectations we might have about  the "unchastity" of homosexuals needs to be applied to the unchastity of hetrosexuals who use pornography.  "All have sinned and come short of the glory of God," which I always understood was the main point of Romans 1-3 (and the first part of the Heidelberg Catechism).  Is my understanding wrong?

2. We have not had the "macro conversation" about the changing culture we are facing in North America, and how we can effectively live out the Christian message in this culture.  We North American  Christians have to do the same hard work as our World Missionaries do-- figure out how to present the gospel to people within a specific culture.  The 1973 report was published in a time when homosexuals were deep in the closet.  No one talked about it.  The 1973 decision was radical!  These people can be members of the church!  Things have changed.  We now have same sex legal unions in most places in North America.  Many are adamant that such unions are not to be called "marriage."  So what is marriage?  Is its whole purpose to produce children?  Or are there other blessings of the marital state that are just as important, even when there is no chance of producing children?   Are those who are faithful in same sex legal unions "unchaste" and in violation of the Heidelberg Catechism?  Or, should they be held to the same standards as those in legal hetrosexual unions?   Why are we asking homosexuals to practice celibacy (a spiritual gift, according to the Scripture, one which not every one has) while never asking the same sacrifice of hetrosexual members?  

These are questions that I don't have the answers to.  So, when it comes to the LGBTQ issue, I have to say,  "I don't know."  But I'm now required to "know."  If I don't agree, I can file a gravaman, but some have suggested that after two years those who file a gravaman will have to conform or leave.   

3. Which brings me to the third macro conversation:  what should the requirements for membership and holding a leadership position in the CRC?  Is a commitment to following Jesus enough?  Or do we have to conform doctrinally?  If so, which doctrines?  Do we have to believe in all five points of TULIP as articulated in the Canons of Dordt, or can we be CRC and not agree with, for example, limited atonement?  Can I be a member and a leader in the CRC and not be quite sure the church and confessions have a particular doctrine right?  Similarly, what is the moral bar that needs to be met?  Can someone addicted to pornography be a member of the CRC?  What does it mean to be saved by grace?  How far does grace extend?

We have some important macro conversations that need to be held.  Whether or not Synod is live-streamed is, in my opinion, a minor (micro) issue.

Thank you, Joel Van Dyke, for this posting.  I grew up in First CRC of Detroit during the 1960s.  I was formed by the 1967 riots that devastated that city (I even wrote a book about the experience).  I came to Calvin College (now University) and Seminary as an adolescent burning questions (literally) in my heart about how to reach places like Detroit.  Much of the teaching in those days centered around theology that originated the Netherlands, which I found hard to relate to.  I spent a year in Chicago in the S.C.U.P.E program, which helped me make some sense of my journey, but ended up serving the CRC in rural congregations as that was where pastors were needed.  I see much of our current denominational struggle as being an urban/rural one.  We remain a largely rural denomination, and our rural members believe their way of life is being threatened.  One of our urban churches-- Neland Ave-- is wrestling directly with the LGBTQ issue while many in the rural communities seem to have the answer.  I am a city boy.  I have no nostalgia for the simple, hardworking, small town or family farm life.  I thrive living in places of diversity (I loved my 20 years of service as a military chaplain, where I ministered to sailors and Marines from every walk of life in America) and am comfortable with people having different perspectives than mine on an issue.  Is there a place in the CRC for people like me? 

I am neither "affirming" or wanting to "abide."  But Synod's mandate to "guide into compliance" dictates the bottom line of any conversation between church visitors and councils.  You can listen all you want, but the only value in the "conversation" is to allow individuals to vent their frustrations.  Synod has been consistently unwilling to listen to those who disagree, including but not limited to those who want to revisit the Scriptural teaching on the issue and the minority report about those who submit a gravamen.  Now we're encouraged to listen!  Any "listening" at this point is merely patronizing-- especially if the church is not open to considering alternative viewpoints as having validity.

I've already written plenty on this, but let me add 2 observations.

1. Re: "discussions of the HSR within congregations . . . is quite a different matter."  One of the issues going on here is that the HSR came out at the beginning of COVID, and Synod did not meet for two years.  I think this produced a great deal of anxiety within the church, fed by some who overstated the issues and created worst-case scenarios.  As I mentioned before, I believe the 2022 decision was an attempt to address the church's anxiety, which took priority over ministry to the LGBTQ community.

2. Whatever Jesus may have said that is not recorded in the Gospels is irrelevant.  These words are not available to us, and so we are in the realm of speculation.  They certainly don't have the authority over the church and believers that Scripture has.

3. How long do we keep the discussion going?  The problem here is sin-- and not the sin of the LGBTQ community.  Too many of us are convinced we have the truth in this matter and are unwilling to consider other voices.  This is pride, which is nothing other than garden-variety sin.  I believe we need to, as a church, repent of our arrogance.  We do not have all the answers.  I'm not sure we even know what all the questions are.  Discerning the leading of God and God's Spirit takes time.  We are in Lent, a 40 day period that begins with considering Jesus' 40 days of fasting in the wilderness.  Discernment takes time.  Anxiety needs to be resolved immediately.  Are we going to be driven by our anxiety or a genuine desire to discern God's leading and a commitment to take whatever time we need?

May God bless all of us in the CRCNA as we strive with our human frailties to be a faithful church.

Thank you for a thoughtful posting.  I would like to make an observation and suggestion  on point #4.  We have a prayer team at Synod every year, and this past Synod they were very hard at work.  However, the leader of the prayer team does not have the privilege of the floor, unlike the ethnic and youth advisors.  Wouldn't it make sense to give the head of the prayer team privilege of the floor so the delegates could hear what they are discerning from God?  Just a thought.

I would add one thing:  Is the ministry setting taking a toll on your health?  The stress of a difficult place can lead to high blood pressure, depression, and other ailments.  Have you been prescribed additional medications to control these medical concerns?  A different ministry setting might literally be "just what the doctor ordered."

Can I add one other point?  Retirement is the closest earthly experience of grace there is.  Retired people don't work, yet they have value.  Retirement is a foretaste of the Shalom of Heaven itself.  The challenge for retirees is to model life in eternity to those who come after us.

You present your thoughts around the theme of "Uncivil Religion." There is a "civil religion" which holds us as a nation together.  Our coins have imprinted on them,  "In God We Trust."  Sessions of Congress are opened with a generic prayer to  a rather generic "God."  When I served as a military chaplain, I offered numerous such prayers.  I suspect when you speak of "Uncivil Religion" you are suggesting this January 6 was Civil Religion gone amuck.  What if we consider January 6 under the them of  "Christian Nationalism"?   In unpacking this theme, let me limit myself to a discussion of the flags flown by the protesters on January 6.  Of course, there was the stars and stripes, our national ensign. But there was also the Christian or Church flag. God and country. Dangerous, but with our Augustinian "two Kingdom" worldview acceptable.    But what about the presence of the Confederate Flag?  I lived in South Carolina for ten years when there was a huge fight about that flag.   The Confederate Flag represents many things, depending on who you're talking to.  (1) Southern Heritage.  So is Christianity a Southern thing?  Is God a tribal god, whose influence is limited to the American south, similar to the local gods of the Old Testament?  (2) Racism.  The real issue behind the Civil War, in spite of Southern attempts to claim otherwise ("it was about states rights")  On January 6 we saw a Christianity affiliated with racism-- very disturbing.  (3) Rebel.  Many in the North have adopted this flag as the "rebel flag."  So is the Christian faith about rebellion?  As I understand the Bible, rebellion is the problem.  I have come to believe Christian Nationalism is a heresy as dangerous as the heresies of the early church.   As an American, I grieve the loss of democracy in our nation.  As a Christian, I take comfort in knowing that the Kingdom of God is not the same as the American Empire.  God's Kingdom survived the fall of Rome, it will survive the end of American Democracy, should that occur.  The loss of Democracy in the nation is sad.  Apostasy in the church is a much bigger problem, one that needs to be courageously addressed.