Douglas Vrieland

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. 

"The Autobiography of Martin Luther King, Jr." ed. by Clayborne Carson.  During these times of high social unrest, I find MLK to be an inspiring example of pastoral and prophetic faithfulness.  By the end of his career, many of his white supporters deserted him because of his views on the Vietnam War, and many of his black supporters deserted him because his continued insistence on non-violence in contrast to such leaders as H. Rap Brown and Malcolm X.  This book was put together post-mortem,  and includes selections from his writings, speeches, and papers.

Right on!  Lately I've seen this term used re. the CRC, "irreconcilable differences."  We have irreconcilable differences, and so we need to split.  This is the language of the divorce court, used to justify a split.  It is not Biblical.  According to the Bible, the church is like a body-- "the body is not made up of one part but of many."  No part can say to another,  "I have no need of you."  The Dutch Americans in the CRC need the Koreans.  The US needs Canada-- and the other way around.  Those who are "affirming" need those who "abide," and the other way around.  "But in fact God has placed the parts in the body, every one of them, just as he wanted them to be. If they were all one part, where would the body be? As it is, there are many parts, but one body"  (see I Corinthians 12:12-20).   I get it-- the Episcopalians, Presbyterians, and the RCA split over issues we are facing today.  How has that worked out for them?  We say the Bible is our guide-- why don't we put our egos aside, listen to what it says, and follow its teaching, as challenging as that may be?

As a retired CRC military chaplain, I want to thank Thrive for this excellent article.  One item that's missing is retired ministers.  We retain the privilages of ministry, including teaching, preaching, and presiding over the sacraments.  But we also are held accountable, and a CRC church holds our credentials.  Holland Heights CRC in Holland, MI holds my credentials as well as an active (hospice) chaplain and two other retired ministers.  They have been very supportive of my ministry, and I believe of the other ministers in the congregation.  The pastor of the church (an RCA pastor) has taken the lead on this.  He is not threatened by the other ministers in the congregation, but appreciates our unique gifts, training, and experience.  When I was in the military, my calling church was Creston CRC in Grand Rapids, which was also very supportive.  In my experience the support of pastors in non-traditional ministries or retired pastors begins with the pastor(s) of the congregation, and his or her respect for their colleague's work.

“I’m not as certain as the people making the decision seem to be. Is it okay for me to stick around even if I’m not as sure about this issue? Can I stay if I have questions or misgivings?”  Maybe most Councils would say, "Yes," but my impression if that Synod is getting ready to say "no."  Fortunately the gravamen question was postponed until Synod, 2024, but I have no assurance that things will be any different.  I feel like I'm being pushed out of the denomination I've been a part of my whole life and have served faithfully as a pastor for 40 years.  Is the denomination going to sponsor "listening circles"?

We seem to be caught in a binary, either/or world.  Either we support the traditional view of Synod, 1973, or we are "affirming."  The author speaks against "changing or position," yet in fact Synod 2022 DID change our position.  Our position had the force of a Synodical Decision, which allowed for disagreement.  Now it is Confessional, meaning there is no room for disagreement.  The author seems to be saying that the change had to be made because allowing the Neland Avenue congregation to disagree was unacceptable.  My answer to the issue is,  "I don't know."  What I do know is that members of the LBGTQ community are image bearers of God, that they need the gospel as much as anyone else does, and that there are many LBGTQ Christians.  So why did Synod 2022 have to make the change from a Synodical statement to Confessional status?  I believe it was to relieve the anxiety within the church, largely because acting on the report was delayed because of COVID.  I believe Synod was more concerned with the anxiety within the church than it was with reaching out effectively to members of the LBGTQ community.  We need, as a church, to step back, take a breath, and humbly admit that we don't have all the answers.  Then we need to fall on our knees and beg God to help us to follow his will, which includes not only teaching on sexual ethics but also church unity.   

Thank you for this article.  I was stationed in Charleston, S.C. when I was assigned as a Chaplain at the Coast Guard base there.  I drove past that church every day.  My heart still goes out to the dear people whose sacred space was defiled on that tragic day.  You are right-- forgiveness is the only answer.