I agree with your assertion that "the CRC has bigger problems than the role and structure of classis," and that the "CRC as an organization has become very top-heavy and it weighs down all the operations," although I'm not sure that isn't another topic from that intended by Paul for this thread.
At least somewhat related to this thread though, I think the only game in town right now for reversing the top-heaviness of the denomination are the classes, the structure of which I don't consider "broken." Unlike the denomination, classis tends much more to be "run" by those delegated to it. On the other hand, I do think our denomination stucture is breaking (has broken?), by which I mean this. While it used to be the case that denominational bureacracy considered it's function to narrowly follow the mandates (instructions) of synod, that relationship now is almost reversed. Today, the real agenda of synod is pretty much pre-established--in a very practical way--by the bureaucracy, which essentially places before synod a series of "broad authorization requests" so that it (the bureaucracy) can say it is doing what synod told it to do (Creation Stewardship Task Force Report is a great example). In short, the CRCNA bureaucracy has effectively become what might be fairly called "self-perpetuating."
The only antidote to this is synodical delgates aggregately finding whatever it takes to do a 180 (including but not limited to getting out of politics and the WCRC) but that's always a really hard thing to do after the self-perpetuation process has established itself (and it has). I would suggest synod won't find what it takes unless a lots of members from the denominational ground floor get involved and start clamoring for it. And that will happen, if it does, largely through the conduit of the classes.
For me personally, after about ten years of not watching things denominationally (but rather focusing on the local), I "woke up" to find my denomination having taken a very long off-road trip in the last 10-15 years or so. I saw that green cover Banner declaring the CRC's position on global warming. Then I checked out Belhar, WCRC, the Accra, OSJ, etc. Couldn't believe where we were. So what changed? Although everything and everyone changes, I'm not persuaded the denominational change is reflected in the local congregations. Rather, I'm persuaded the denomination has transformed from "servant to master" if you will, declaring its own life, will, and right to create the agenda instead of receive it. The BOT is now much more meaningful than synod. We need a 180 turn-around on this and I think the classes will play a key role in that happening--if it happens. This coming Synod may give us a sign as to whether it might/can happen. The bureaucracy has been tirelessly pushing the Belhar, but the more folks in the pew find about it, the less they like it. So, which will win out. Classical overtures against Belhar greatly outnumber those in favor. One would think the Belhar certainly will not pass. If it does, it is a sign that it is nearly impossible to reverse the relationship between the CRCNA bureaucracy and synod.
Antonio: OK, so you are saying that Paul couldn't rise above his culture, even when writing Scripture (and despite the working of the Holy Spirit)? Paul was aware of Peter's vision (clean/unclean animals) and the implication for that, but he couldn't figure out that he should no longer direct that women should not teach or have authority over men?
And what about Jesus himself (you didn't respond to that). He came to literally change everything, and did, but he didn't bother to include even one female among his disciples, choosing instead to, well to use your characterization of those times, oppress them?
Why could Jesus and Paul not quote your line: "The Grace and Love of God is greater than the silly "patriarcal society" which oppresses women, and so we will not conform our actions to those oppressive ways?
You may all of this sound so simple, but then why wasn't it so simple and straight forward for Jesus and Paul. Why, instead, they they act and speak in a way that continued what you regard as oppression?
Antonio: But then Jesus was "archaic" man as well, not? And Paul? And guess who designed that oppressive Old Testament system that was patriarchal in the first place, that provided a sign of the covenant to males only. If Jesus was a "good Jew" (and he was in a way), he complied with a system that God created in the first place.
Understand I agree that women should not be prohibited from the offices of elder and minister. But I do object to characterizing those who take another view as anological racists or just of unbelievable archaic mindsets. I genuinely don't understand why we have to deride those of a position that is clearly Biblically defensible by essentially calling names. Why do we have to posit the existence of villains. Again, I'll point to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 as instructive for all of us.
Dawn: You say, "My interest is in the question of how the CRC can thrive, given people like me and others equally convinced that women must suffer lock-outs." My answer: by living with each other in the kind of gracious demonstrated by Acts 15, 1 Cor 13, Mother Theresa, and many other examples and directives. By understanding and living the principle that he/she who truly serves if he/she who truly leads, that washing feet is more important than being served by others at the table. Frankly, no one in the church, CRC or otherwise, needs to be "in authority" to serve in an truly unrestricted way.
Christians will forever be wrong on particular "issues." I'll be wrong on some and so will you. If you or I encounter a brother or sister who shows love and grace, but differs from us as to questions that are important, you and I do everyone a disfavor by if we characterize that person in a demeaning way. My bottom line is that why I'd avoid endless analogies to racism, archaic attitudes, etc. I think too many on both sides have been too demeaning to "the other side" and still are. If we can't live in grace with each other, the world will have no cause to consider what we have to say. We can know everything and yet be nothing but loud noise.
Dawn: You ask, "Are you able to understand that with my analogy to the civil rights movement, I am trying to shed light and not darkness?"
As I said in my very first post, that analogy just does not work. It comes from a "rights based" mentality that is not biblically based. Scripture teaches an "upside down", "first is last, the least of these is greatest," "blessed is he who serves," "incarnate God himself washes feet and dies a horrible death mentality."
I suppose I'll accept your statement that you "do not intend to characterized anyone other than myself and definitely do not intend to be demeaning," but not without saying as well that you are then -- and I say this respectfully -- not so careful about how you say things. And then you say, "By choosing to be a member of the CRC, I am engaged in doing something that I find to be abhorable and sinful. I am a member of a country club that does not permit black tee times," which really contradicts your assertion just made a sentence before. You didn't say "it sometimes makes me feel as if ..." but declare continuing membership in the CRC sinful and abhorrent.
Beyond that, if you really believe staying as a member of the CRC is engaging in something sinful and abhorrent, you simply shouldn't stay a member, and you seem a sincere enough Christian that I would think you would choose not to daily live a sinful and abhorrent life. So I'm left to wonder: which is it? Is Dawn just engaging in extreme hyperbole when she uses the race analogy or is she daily choosing to lead a life that in her mind is sinful and abhorrent?
I've always said to those opposed to women in office, that if the worst sin you commit is allowing a woman to preach and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ, I think God will forgive you. To those on the other side (and you seem to be there), if the worst sin you commit is allowing others to follow what they believe Scripture says, I think God will forgive you. The point of my thoughts is to communicate how small the real offense that is that is purported occurring here. But if you really feel otherwise, that you truly, daily live a sinful and abhorrent life by remaining CRC (or whatever tradition), by all means, I can't figure out why you would stay within this tradition. The CRC is not the Holy Catholic Church after all.
Respectfully, Dawn, your analogizing to racial prohibitions doesn't work. Although culture may play a role in limiting the office of elder to men (as Paul repeatedly says), there is more to it than that. There is a good faith, Scripture-based, argument that women should not be permitted to teach or have authority over men.
Before you jump all over me, understand I've come to the view that Scripture does NOT prohibit women from being elders or ministers. I came to that position by very closely examining the question when I was a synodical delegate in 1992, assigned to the committee that dealt with whether or not to ratify a prior synodical decision to open the offices of elder/minister to women. I decided then, and publically said so, that I thought Scripture does NOT prohibit women from serving as elder/women, I still did NOT think the CRCNA should remove the CO exclusion of women from those offices.
Why? For the same reason that the folks at Jerusalem in Acts 15 did not make their decisions based solely on "theological correctness" -- the unity of the church, a much greater mandate, was at stake.
Let me repeat: there is a good faith Scripture-based argument for excluding women from the office of elder/minister. Conversely, there is not a good faith, Scripture-based argument for excluding persons with certain racial characteristices from those offices. And as to women in office, if I need to choose between the unity of the church (whether the "other side" has a good faith argument) and fencing individual women (or men for that matter) out from one of the many, many, many ways to serve their Creator, I'm going with unity. Did then, still will.
So does this mean women will "always suffer this injustice?" Probably not. Consider what Paul told a slave who left his master and how history has developed since then.
Personally, I find more than enough ways to serve God without being an elder. Indeed, I resolved to "bear with women" since Synod of 1992. I've not been an elder since (I regularly decline nomination). Frankly, I have found that a bit liberating: it has allowed me to do other things that I find I enjoy more and would judge more profitable in many ways. These days, I spend my "discretionary time" doing more cooking. I'm a regular for the annual Cadet breakfast and the Thanksgiving meal served to 100+ every year. I teach more Sunday school. I take care of a neighborhood park that hadn't been taken care of by the county. We have three international students from the local Christian high school. It's a bit hard to say with certainty, but I probably wouldn't be doing at least some of that, maybe most of it, if I were an elder.
Personally, I'm persuaded that the CRC would have eventually opened the offices of elder/minister without it having to be "forced open," at the great cost of disunity and division. In other words, I believe the CRC erred when it opened those offices, even though I think it was theologically correct (and who knows, I could be wrong on the theology). Again, I would appeal to the "logic" of Acts 15, but as well to 1 Cor 13 (we can be right, yet nothing but a loud noise).
Final point: I think those who favor women in office could have, and still can where the classis doesn't seat women, can find ways to "chip away" at those restrictions and become more involved, even at a classis level. I would also suggest that when women -- or men -- express their disagreements as to the prohibitions with words like "discrimination" and "bigotry" -- or analogize to racism -- they prove their theological opposition's point, at least in the mind of those who have concluded that opening those offices would be the result of worldly thinking. Talking about wanting to serve will create much more unity and opportunity than talking about rights, discrimination, or "this is like racism."
If you like, this is my "road map." Might not be what you wanted (too slow), but I find it Scriptural.
Respectfully Dawn, you acknowledge the argument (re women in certain offices) but you have neither time nor respect for those whose conclusions on the question differ from your own. What you write denigrates those who hold that different position by equating their positions with positions on other questions that none of them would have.
The source of this irreconcilability is not that the "culture of classis is fatally ill" but that some, including you, wish to stay within the denomination (a structure that includes classis) but yet insist that it must change as you dictate to fit with your conclusions.
Again, respectfully, I think it would be better for the church (the 'holy catholic or universal' one) if you decided to to associate with an church institution tradition other than that of the CRCNA. Paul and Barnabas separated over a difference. It may be that you and the CRCNA should as well.
Actually, I don't understand how that (classes who do not seat women) "tugs at your conscience." I suspect I understand how disagreeable that is for you, but not how it "tugs at your conscience." I think you tend to characterize things so that you will always look good and reasonable and those on the other side bad and unreasonable. I don't think you have any concern or inclination to understand or empathize with the position of others on this question.
Dawn: While I agree with you on the narrow question, I don't agree as to what you find in Scripture. Paul did lock out women from teaching or having authority over women. The OT sign of the covenant locked out women from having the sign. Jesus did lock out women from being among his twelve disciples.
Conversely, I can find nothing in Scripture where races were locked out of anything.
Richard: I re-read my post and don't find either mischaracterizations or a dearth of gracious understanding. Certainly, I know I wrote nothing in anger or with the intent to be less than respectful. Your own post says, and I quote,
"we must stop compromising with the cry-baby, foot-stompers who threaten
to leave or walk out should we decide "X." I say, let 'em go. If not, let's just admit
that we prefer to be held hostage by cry-babies and foot-stompers. Besides,
if their commitment to us, is that shallow and fragile, they are already admitting
that their primary loyalties lie more with themselves than with the covenant we
have together as this part of the Body of Christ to which they claim to belong."
The differences between my post and yours are two: (1) I use much less name-calling, (2) I talk directly to the person who isn't going to like what I say instead of say things about not-specifically-named others.
I meant "respectfully" when I said that. Still, there's a time to call a spade a spade. In your post, you bemoaned a lack of willingness to submit. I'm being specific about applying that admonition, not with name-calling words or words that are hyperbolic or gratuitously sharp, but still directly.
And perhaps we have a different definition for "conscience." When one decides he/she is aggrieved, repeatedly asks others how they would feel if, like he/she, they were the analogical object of racism, one is feeling victimized but not a tug of conscience. He/she is, after all, not the perpetrator of the analogical racism but the victim of it. And just sometimes, actually often, when we are convinced we are the victim, we think we have a special license -- because of the victim status -- to interact with others in ways we ourselves would deem unacceptable.
The church is simply not benefitted, but harmed, by repeated accusations of analogical racism (among other analogies, e.g., slave-keeping) against those who sincerely hold the position that Scripture does not allow for women to hold certain offices. Keep in mind, my view is that the church should allow women to hold those offices. Still, I respect, and insist on respect for, those who disagree out of Scripture based motivation. Our church (denomination) made a decision about this and some classes are following that decision, respectfully, but then are called analogical racists, perhaps "cry-babies" and "foot-stompers" as well (not to mention members of a culture resembling "stagnant water"). At some point, it's time to object to the characterizations, describe these (mis)characterizations as what they are, and suggest a biblically consistent resolution (separating) if some just can't live with that (or at least stop with the characterizations). I thought it was that time, understanding and respecting your right to disagree. And Dawn's right too.
Paul: I'm going to suggest there may be a couple of problems.
First, "social justice" is a "liberal term." More specifically, it is a code-phrase for a certain political perspective that some (many?) of your kids -- and/or their parents -- may not adhere to.
Second, the term (social justice) itself is problematic. It only speaks of "justice" and not "mercy" (your posts discusses mercy but the term "social justice" does not). Certainly, we must do justice (as Micah 6:8 says), but the current fashionable political perspective (which created the phrase "social justice") wants to talk only of justice and never (or rarely) of mercy, and wants to, literally, recharacterize that which should be described as "mercy" as "justice." Why? Because that is a political statement: the poor are poor only because they are oppressed, which means "poor-ness" is always the result of injustice -- oppression by others. The use of "mercy" implies there is no injustice done, that someone is giving out of love but not because justice demands it. "Social justice" thinking just doesn't like talk of mercy because that would imply condescension.
"Social justice" is a close cousin to "liberation theology," which is a close cousin to neo-Marxism. All three represent political perspectives more than anything else.
Finally, when you say "Others have a flawed logic that if poor people just worked harder, they wouldn’t be poor," you somewhat belie your bias. In fact, that is sometimes the case. Sometimes it's not the case as well, but sometimes it is. In addition, there are times where the decisions people make (e.g., not to finish high school, to have a child without benefit of marriage, to spend money unwisely, etc.) cause them to be poor. I'm not suggesting that we (as Christ's representatives) should ignore people who don't work harder or make bad decisions, but helping them is not then a matter of "justice" but rather of "mercy."
Understand the possibility that whenever you talk about "doing justice to others", those you talk to may be understanding you to say that they have done injustice to those others. If they feel accused, the accusation may bother them, in part because the accusation is itself unjustice.
I think it is helpful in all of this to examine claims of "conscience violation." When issues like this are raised, folks (generally on both extremes of perspective) are quick to claim their "conscience is violated." Certainly, one's conscience can be violated, but that is when one does something one knows one shoudn't do. It does NOT happened, and cannot be legitimately claimed, when one is simply in opposition to someone else doing something or taking some position, which is often the basis for the claim in the women-in-office discussion.
So if you do something to me that you shouldn't (e.g., don't repay a loan I gave you, or hit me for no reason), I can have a number of responses but not (at least with credibility) that you violated my conscience.
In the CRC, we've gotten the habit of claiming conscience violations for doctrinal disagreements because it works a bit like the rook card in the game of Rook. Trumps everything and everyone tends to step back because of your sacred invocation of right. And the more we get that response, the more we claim it.
If don't believe women should be pastors, but I go to a CRC church in a distant city and they have a woman pastor (I didn't know ahead of time of course), I really can't claim that being exposed to that woman violated by conscience. Or if I can claim it, it is because I refused to walk out when I thought I was required to and could have but didn't. She didn't violate my conscience, nor did the council who put her in the pulpit.
Applied to any who may claim conscience violations when women attend their classis meetings: well, that your problem; she doesn't violate your conscience, only you can.
Applied to any who may claim that their conscience is violated when their council doesn't allow women as elders in their church: what are you talking about; you're simply disagreeing with someone else making a decision that they, not you, made; how can that violate your conscience?
Getting to the core of the issue (in discussing it at least) will mean, then, dropping most of these "violations of conscience" claims -- getting rid of the rook and trump color tactics -- and talking more directly about what we have concluded what we have concluded.
Chris: The term ('social justice') may have roots (or at least a root) in Catholicism but that doesn't mean it's not liberal (nor is Catholicism "all about the sanctity of human life" -- it's a big church with lot of views and lots of doctrines).
Indeed, Catholicism is also the historic source of "liberation theology" (the Protestant version generally referred to as "social gospel) and the two, or three, phrases, "social justice," "liberation theology," and "social gospel," are all phrases within a largely single perspective. For a good summary, check out Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice ). However "social justice" may be characterized, "conservative" is not one of them.
Understand of course that "liberal" and "conservative" are relative terms (thus, a conservative in the US tends to want limited government while a conservative in Russia wants dictatorial government). But we're in the US, talking about US/English words and phrases, as are the parents (and children) of CRC church youth groups. Were we in Russia, "social justice" would indeed be "conservative."
I think there is a pretty big disconnect between the denominational bureacracy and the CRC membership in this area. Via our membership in the WCRC and a number of activities of our CRC agencies (OSJ and others), the denominational bureaucracy is embracing, promoting, and advocating political centrism (lots of government control over society) and forced (government controlled) egalitarianism -- all under the banner of "social justice." That would make sense in a Catholic tradition, but not in a Calvinist tradition. The historic Catholic tradition rarely opposed centristic government control. In fact, the middle ages is a long story of the Catholic tradition promoting, even seizing that centristic government control (and the Catholic church governance structure is very heirarchical, in contrast to that of the various Calvinist traditions). Catholic tradition embraced monarchy; but the various Calvinist traditions wanted decentralized authority (sphere sovereignty if you will). Only recently, and especially in the US, Catholics have been rethinking their political perspectives and becoming much more conservative, that is, de-centrist in their political thinking.
And this is the problem that Paul Boice's families may be having. When most CRC folk (members, not denominational bureacracy) hear the phrase "social justice," they hear (for good reason) Van Jones, green parties, Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas, Barak Obama -- all of which have two political perspective points in common: (1) that which used to be regarded as "mercy" is now recast as a matter of justice, which means a matter of political right; (2) government should enforce political rights, including matters of justice, including the right to economic equality.
Interestly, even though Paul Boice's lead post begins with talk of "social justice," it continues more by referring to mercy, even describing the projects undertaken as "mercy projects." Justice and mercy are two different things. Christians should "do justice" and they should "love mercy," but they should not confuse the two, and the current fashionable use of the phrase "social justice" does just that, confusing not only the two concepts, but the people with whom the phrase is used in conversation. And so when Paul takes his kids back from doing "mercy projects," he finds no objection but rather enthusiasm for what was done. Makes sense. When he talked first about "social justice," he got a cool response; but then when he engaged the kids in "mercy projects," he found families supportive. His initial communication was not in sync with the projects actually undertaken.
Please don't misunderstand my perspective. I'm all for "mercy" and "mercy projects." I advocate for them, I do them personally -- a lot (because I'm a decentrist). I'm also all for "justice," having spent more than a little of my 32 years of law practice obtaining justice for clients (not infrequently at no or little charge). But I don't confuse the two, and I don't advocate for government to be our society's mechanism for doing mercy (justice yes, mercy no). In fact, I would suggest that confusing the two, and miscasting the role of government as to justice and mercy, leads to dramatically bad results.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
I agree with your assertion that "the CRC has bigger problems than the role and structure of classis," and that the "CRC as an organization has become very top-heavy and it weighs down all the operations," although I'm not sure that isn't another topic from that intended by Paul for this thread.
At least somewhat related to this thread though, I think the only game in town right now for reversing the top-heaviness of the denomination are the classes, the structure of which I don't consider "broken." Unlike the denomination, classis tends much more to be "run" by those delegated to it. On the other hand, I do think our denomination stucture is breaking (has broken?), by which I mean this. While it used to be the case that denominational bureacracy considered it's function to narrowly follow the mandates (instructions) of synod, that relationship now is almost reversed. Today, the real agenda of synod is pretty much pre-established--in a very practical way--by the bureaucracy, which essentially places before synod a series of "broad authorization requests" so that it (the bureaucracy) can say it is doing what synod told it to do (Creation Stewardship Task Force Report is a great example). In short, the CRCNA bureaucracy has effectively become what might be fairly called "self-perpetuating."
The only antidote to this is synodical delgates aggregately finding whatever it takes to do a 180 (including but not limited to getting out of politics and the WCRC) but that's always a really hard thing to do after the self-perpetuation process has established itself (and it has). I would suggest synod won't find what it takes unless a lots of members from the denominational ground floor get involved and start clamoring for it. And that will happen, if it does, largely through the conduit of the classes.
For me personally, after about ten years of not watching things denominationally (but rather focusing on the local), I "woke up" to find my denomination having taken a very long off-road trip in the last 10-15 years or so. I saw that green cover Banner declaring the CRC's position on global warming. Then I checked out Belhar, WCRC, the Accra, OSJ, etc. Couldn't believe where we were. So what changed? Although everything and everyone changes, I'm not persuaded the denominational change is reflected in the local congregations. Rather, I'm persuaded the denomination has transformed from "servant to master" if you will, declaring its own life, will, and right to create the agenda instead of receive it. The BOT is now much more meaningful than synod. We need a 180 turn-around on this and I think the classes will play a key role in that happening--if it happens. This coming Synod may give us a sign as to whether it might/can happen. The bureaucracy has been tirelessly pushing the Belhar, but the more folks in the pew find about it, the less they like it. So, which will win out. Classical overtures against Belhar greatly outnumber those in favor. One would think the Belhar certainly will not pass. If it does, it is a sign that it is nearly impossible to reverse the relationship between the CRCNA bureaucracy and synod.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Antonio: OK, so you are saying that Paul couldn't rise above his culture, even when writing Scripture (and despite the working of the Holy Spirit)? Paul was aware of Peter's vision (clean/unclean animals) and the implication for that, but he couldn't figure out that he should no longer direct that women should not teach or have authority over men?
And what about Jesus himself (you didn't respond to that). He came to literally change everything, and did, but he didn't bother to include even one female among his disciples, choosing instead to, well to use your characterization of those times, oppress them?
Why could Jesus and Paul not quote your line: "The Grace and Love of God is greater than the silly "patriarcal society" which oppresses women, and so we will not conform our actions to those oppressive ways?
You may all of this sound so simple, but then why wasn't it so simple and straight forward for Jesus and Paul. Why, instead, they they act and speak in a way that continued what you regard as oppression?
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Antonio: But then Jesus was "archaic" man as well, not? And Paul? And guess who designed that oppressive Old Testament system that was patriarchal in the first place, that provided a sign of the covenant to males only. If Jesus was a "good Jew" (and he was in a way), he complied with a system that God created in the first place.
Understand I agree that women should not be prohibited from the offices of elder and minister. But I do object to characterizing those who take another view as anological racists or just of unbelievable archaic mindsets. I genuinely don't understand why we have to deride those of a position that is clearly Biblically defensible by essentially calling names. Why do we have to posit the existence of villains. Again, I'll point to the Council of Jerusalem in Acts 15 as instructive for all of us.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Dawn: You say, "My interest is in the question of how the CRC can thrive, given people like me and others equally convinced that women must suffer lock-outs." My answer: by living with each other in the kind of gracious demonstrated by Acts 15, 1 Cor 13, Mother Theresa, and many other examples and directives. By understanding and living the principle that he/she who truly serves if he/she who truly leads, that washing feet is more important than being served by others at the table. Frankly, no one in the church, CRC or otherwise, needs to be "in authority" to serve in an truly unrestricted way.
Christians will forever be wrong on particular "issues." I'll be wrong on some and so will you. If you or I encounter a brother or sister who shows love and grace, but differs from us as to questions that are important, you and I do everyone a disfavor by if we characterize that person in a demeaning way. My bottom line is that why I'd avoid endless analogies to racism, archaic attitudes, etc. I think too many on both sides have been too demeaning to "the other side" and still are. If we can't live in grace with each other, the world will have no cause to consider what we have to say. We can know everything and yet be nothing but loud noise.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Dawn: You ask, "Are you able to understand that with my analogy to the civil rights movement, I am trying to shed light and not darkness?"
As I said in my very first post, that analogy just does not work. It comes from a "rights based" mentality that is not biblically based. Scripture teaches an "upside down", "first is last, the least of these is greatest," "blessed is he who serves," "incarnate God himself washes feet and dies a horrible death mentality."
I suppose I'll accept your statement that you "do not intend to characterized anyone other than myself and definitely do not intend to be demeaning," but not without saying as well that you are then -- and I say this respectfully -- not so careful about how you say things. And then you say, "By choosing to be a member of the CRC, I am engaged in doing something that I find to be abhorable and sinful. I am a member of a country club that does not permit black tee times," which really contradicts your assertion just made a sentence before. You didn't say "it sometimes makes me feel as if ..." but declare continuing membership in the CRC sinful and abhorrent.
Beyond that, if you really believe staying as a member of the CRC is engaging in something sinful and abhorrent, you simply shouldn't stay a member, and you seem a sincere enough Christian that I would think you would choose not to daily live a sinful and abhorrent life. So I'm left to wonder: which is it? Is Dawn just engaging in extreme hyperbole when she uses the race analogy or is she daily choosing to lead a life that in her mind is sinful and abhorrent?
I've always said to those opposed to women in office, that if the worst sin you commit is allowing a woman to preach and teach the gospel of Jesus Christ, I think God will forgive you. To those on the other side (and you seem to be there), if the worst sin you commit is allowing others to follow what they believe Scripture says, I think God will forgive you. The point of my thoughts is to communicate how small the real offense that is that is purported occurring here. But if you really feel otherwise, that you truly, daily live a sinful and abhorrent life by remaining CRC (or whatever tradition), by all means, I can't figure out why you would stay within this tradition. The CRC is not the Holy Catholic Church after all.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Respectfully, Dawn, your analogizing to racial prohibitions doesn't work. Although culture may play a role in limiting the office of elder to men (as Paul repeatedly says), there is more to it than that. There is a good faith, Scripture-based, argument that women should not be permitted to teach or have authority over men.
Before you jump all over me, understand I've come to the view that Scripture does NOT prohibit women from being elders or ministers. I came to that position by very closely examining the question when I was a synodical delegate in 1992, assigned to the committee that dealt with whether or not to ratify a prior synodical decision to open the offices of elder/minister to women. I decided then, and publically said so, that I thought Scripture does NOT prohibit women from serving as elder/women, I still did NOT think the CRCNA should remove the CO exclusion of women from those offices.
Why? For the same reason that the folks at Jerusalem in Acts 15 did not make their decisions based solely on "theological correctness" -- the unity of the church, a much greater mandate, was at stake.
Let me repeat: there is a good faith Scripture-based argument for excluding women from the office of elder/minister. Conversely, there is not a good faith, Scripture-based argument for excluding persons with certain racial characteristices from those offices. And as to women in office, if I need to choose between the unity of the church (whether the "other side" has a good faith argument) and fencing individual women (or men for that matter) out from one of the many, many, many ways to serve their Creator, I'm going with unity. Did then, still will.
So does this mean women will "always suffer this injustice?" Probably not. Consider what Paul told a slave who left his master and how history has developed since then.
Personally, I find more than enough ways to serve God without being an elder. Indeed, I resolved to "bear with women" since Synod of 1992. I've not been an elder since (I regularly decline nomination). Frankly, I have found that a bit liberating: it has allowed me to do other things that I find I enjoy more and would judge more profitable in many ways. These days, I spend my "discretionary time" doing more cooking. I'm a regular for the annual Cadet breakfast and the Thanksgiving meal served to 100+ every year. I teach more Sunday school. I take care of a neighborhood park that hadn't been taken care of by the county. We have three international students from the local Christian high school. It's a bit hard to say with certainty, but I probably wouldn't be doing at least some of that, maybe most of it, if I were an elder.
Personally, I'm persuaded that the CRC would have eventually opened the offices of elder/minister without it having to be "forced open," at the great cost of disunity and division. In other words, I believe the CRC erred when it opened those offices, even though I think it was theologically correct (and who knows, I could be wrong on the theology). Again, I would appeal to the "logic" of Acts 15, but as well to 1 Cor 13 (we can be right, yet nothing but a loud noise).
Final point: I think those who favor women in office could have, and still can where the classis doesn't seat women, can find ways to "chip away" at those restrictions and become more involved, even at a classis level. I would also suggest that when women -- or men -- express their disagreements as to the prohibitions with words like "discrimination" and "bigotry" -- or analogize to racism -- they prove their theological opposition's point, at least in the mind of those who have concluded that opening those offices would be the result of worldly thinking. Talking about wanting to serve will create much more unity and opportunity than talking about rights, discrimination, or "this is like racism."
If you like, this is my "road map." Might not be what you wanted (too slow), but I find it Scriptural.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Respectfully Dawn, you acknowledge the argument (re women in certain offices) but you have neither time nor respect for those whose conclusions on the question differ from your own. What you write denigrates those who hold that different position by equating their positions with positions on other questions that none of them would have.
The source of this irreconcilability is not that the "culture of classis is fatally ill" but that some, including you, wish to stay within the denomination (a structure that includes classis) but yet insist that it must change as you dictate to fit with your conclusions.
Again, respectfully, I think it would be better for the church (the 'holy catholic or universal' one) if you decided to to associate with an church institution tradition other than that of the CRCNA. Paul and Barnabas separated over a difference. It may be that you and the CRCNA should as well.
Actually, I don't understand how that (classes who do not seat women) "tugs at your conscience." I suspect I understand how disagreeable that is for you, but not how it "tugs at your conscience." I think you tend to characterize things so that you will always look good and reasonable and those on the other side bad and unreasonable. I don't think you have any concern or inclination to understand or empathize with the position of others on this question.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Dawn: While I agree with you on the narrow question, I don't agree as to what you find in Scripture. Paul did lock out women from teaching or having authority over women. The OT sign of the covenant locked out women from having the sign. Jesus did lock out women from being among his twelve disciples.
Conversely, I can find nothing in Scripture where races were locked out of anything.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
Richard: I re-read my post and don't find either mischaracterizations or a dearth of gracious understanding. Certainly, I know I wrote nothing in anger or with the intent to be less than respectful. Your own post says, and I quote,
"we must stop compromising with the cry-baby, foot-stompers who threaten
to leave or walk out should we decide "X." I say, let 'em go. If not, let's just admit
that we prefer to be held hostage by cry-babies and foot-stompers. Besides,
if their commitment to us, is that shallow and fragile, they are already admitting
that their primary loyalties lie more with themselves than with the covenant we
have together as this part of the Body of Christ to which they claim to belong."
The differences between my post and yours are two: (1) I use much less name-calling, (2) I talk directly to the person who isn't going to like what I say instead of say things about not-specifically-named others.
I meant "respectfully" when I said that. Still, there's a time to call a spade a spade. In your post, you bemoaned a lack of willingness to submit. I'm being specific about applying that admonition, not with name-calling words or words that are hyperbolic or gratuitously sharp, but still directly.
And perhaps we have a different definition for "conscience." When one decides he/she is aggrieved, repeatedly asks others how they would feel if, like he/she, they were the analogical object of racism, one is feeling victimized but not a tug of conscience. He/she is, after all, not the perpetrator of the analogical racism but the victim of it. And just sometimes, actually often, when we are convinced we are the victim, we think we have a special license -- because of the victim status -- to interact with others in ways we ourselves would deem unacceptable.
The church is simply not benefitted, but harmed, by repeated accusations of analogical racism (among other analogies, e.g., slave-keeping) against those who sincerely hold the position that Scripture does not allow for women to hold certain offices. Keep in mind, my view is that the church should allow women to hold those offices. Still, I respect, and insist on respect for, those who disagree out of Scripture based motivation. Our church (denomination) made a decision about this and some classes are following that decision, respectfully, but then are called analogical racists, perhaps "cry-babies" and "foot-stompers" as well (not to mention members of a culture resembling "stagnant water"). At some point, it's time to object to the characterizations, describe these (mis)characterizations as what they are, and suggest a biblically consistent resolution (separating) if some just can't live with that (or at least stop with the characterizations). I thought it was that time, understanding and respecting your right to disagree. And Dawn's right too.
Posted in: Seek Justice, Love Mercy, Walk Humbly...in Youth Group
Paul: I'm going to suggest there may be a couple of problems.
First, "social justice" is a "liberal term." More specifically, it is a code-phrase for a certain political perspective that some (many?) of your kids -- and/or their parents -- may not adhere to.
Second, the term (social justice) itself is problematic. It only speaks of "justice" and not "mercy" (your posts discusses mercy but the term "social justice" does not). Certainly, we must do justice (as Micah 6:8 says), but the current fashionable political perspective (which created the phrase "social justice") wants to talk only of justice and never (or rarely) of mercy, and wants to, literally, recharacterize that which should be described as "mercy" as "justice." Why? Because that is a political statement: the poor are poor only because they are oppressed, which means "poor-ness" is always the result of injustice -- oppression by others. The use of "mercy" implies there is no injustice done, that someone is giving out of love but not because justice demands it. "Social justice" thinking just doesn't like talk of mercy because that would imply condescension.
"Social justice" is a close cousin to "liberation theology," which is a close cousin to neo-Marxism. All three represent political perspectives more than anything else.
Finally, when you say "Others have a flawed logic that if poor people just worked harder, they wouldn’t be poor," you somewhat belie your bias. In fact, that is sometimes the case. Sometimes it's not the case as well, but sometimes it is. In addition, there are times where the decisions people make (e.g., not to finish high school, to have a child without benefit of marriage, to spend money unwisely, etc.) cause them to be poor. I'm not suggesting that we (as Christ's representatives) should ignore people who don't work harder or make bad decisions, but helping them is not then a matter of "justice" but rather of "mercy."
Understand the possibility that whenever you talk about "doing justice to others", those you talk to may be understanding you to say that they have done injustice to those others. If they feel accused, the accusation may bother them, in part because the accusation is itself unjustice.
Posted in: Classes that Won't Seat Women
I think it is helpful in all of this to examine claims of "conscience violation." When issues like this are raised, folks (generally on both extremes of perspective) are quick to claim their "conscience is violated." Certainly, one's conscience can be violated, but that is when one does something one knows one shoudn't do. It does NOT happened, and cannot be legitimately claimed, when one is simply in opposition to someone else doing something or taking some position, which is often the basis for the claim in the women-in-office discussion.
So if you do something to me that you shouldn't (e.g., don't repay a loan I gave you, or hit me for no reason), I can have a number of responses but not (at least with credibility) that you violated my conscience.
In the CRC, we've gotten the habit of claiming conscience violations for doctrinal disagreements because it works a bit like the rook card in the game of Rook. Trumps everything and everyone tends to step back because of your sacred invocation of right. And the more we get that response, the more we claim it.
If don't believe women should be pastors, but I go to a CRC church in a distant city and they have a woman pastor (I didn't know ahead of time of course), I really can't claim that being exposed to that woman violated by conscience. Or if I can claim it, it is because I refused to walk out when I thought I was required to and could have but didn't. She didn't violate my conscience, nor did the council who put her in the pulpit.
Applied to any who may claim conscience violations when women attend their classis meetings: well, that your problem; she doesn't violate your conscience, only you can.
Applied to any who may claim that their conscience is violated when their council doesn't allow women as elders in their church: what are you talking about; you're simply disagreeing with someone else making a decision that they, not you, made; how can that violate your conscience?
Getting to the core of the issue (in discussing it at least) will mean, then, dropping most of these "violations of conscience" claims -- getting rid of the rook and trump color tactics -- and talking more directly about what we have concluded what we have concluded.
Posted in: Seek Justice, Love Mercy, Walk Humbly...in Youth Group
Chris: The term ('social justice') may have roots (or at least a root) in Catholicism but that doesn't mean it's not liberal (nor is Catholicism "all about the sanctity of human life" -- it's a big church with lot of views and lots of doctrines).
Indeed, Catholicism is also the historic source of "liberation theology" (the Protestant version generally referred to as "social gospel) and the two, or three, phrases, "social justice," "liberation theology," and "social gospel," are all phrases within a largely single perspective. For a good summary, check out Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_justice ). However "social justice" may be characterized, "conservative" is not one of them.
Understand of course that "liberal" and "conservative" are relative terms (thus, a conservative in the US tends to want limited government while a conservative in Russia wants dictatorial government). But we're in the US, talking about US/English words and phrases, as are the parents (and children) of CRC church youth groups. Were we in Russia, "social justice" would indeed be "conservative."
I think there is a pretty big disconnect between the denominational bureacracy and the CRC membership in this area. Via our membership in the WCRC and a number of activities of our CRC agencies (OSJ and others), the denominational bureaucracy is embracing, promoting, and advocating political centrism (lots of government control over society) and forced (government controlled) egalitarianism -- all under the banner of "social justice." That would make sense in a Catholic tradition, but not in a Calvinist tradition. The historic Catholic tradition rarely opposed centristic government control. In fact, the middle ages is a long story of the Catholic tradition promoting, even seizing that centristic government control (and the Catholic church governance structure is very heirarchical, in contrast to that of the various Calvinist traditions). Catholic tradition embraced monarchy; but the various Calvinist traditions wanted decentralized authority (sphere sovereignty if you will). Only recently, and especially in the US, Catholics have been rethinking their political perspectives and becoming much more conservative, that is, de-centrist in their political thinking.
And this is the problem that Paul Boice's families may be having. When most CRC folk (members, not denominational bureacracy) hear the phrase "social justice," they hear (for good reason) Van Jones, green parties, Daniel Ortega and the Sandinistas, Barak Obama -- all of which have two political perspective points in common: (1) that which used to be regarded as "mercy" is now recast as a matter of justice, which means a matter of political right; (2) government should enforce political rights, including matters of justice, including the right to economic equality.
Interestly, even though Paul Boice's lead post begins with talk of "social justice," it continues more by referring to mercy, even describing the projects undertaken as "mercy projects." Justice and mercy are two different things. Christians should "do justice" and they should "love mercy," but they should not confuse the two, and the current fashionable use of the phrase "social justice" does just that, confusing not only the two concepts, but the people with whom the phrase is used in conversation. And so when Paul takes his kids back from doing "mercy projects," he finds no objection but rather enthusiasm for what was done. Makes sense. When he talked first about "social justice," he got a cool response; but then when he engaged the kids in "mercy projects," he found families supportive. His initial communication was not in sync with the projects actually undertaken.
Please don't misunderstand my perspective. I'm all for "mercy" and "mercy projects." I advocate for them, I do them personally -- a lot (because I'm a decentrist). I'm also all for "justice," having spent more than a little of my 32 years of law practice obtaining justice for clients (not infrequently at no or little charge). But I don't confuse the two, and I don't advocate for government to be our society's mechanism for doing mercy (justice yes, mercy no). In fact, I would suggest that confusing the two, and miscasting the role of government as to justice and mercy, leads to dramatically bad results.