I've been thinking about the last three or four decades of the CRCNA and am thinking it likely that we might see an exodus from the church's left-wing because of our inability to break bread together over the sexuality issue much as we saw an exodus in the 1990s and 2000s from the right wing over the issue of WICO. The loss of the right wing in the last decades greatly hurt the church. The caucus of the left was maybe jubilant for a while thinking we finally had our backdoor revival. But synod, after The URC and MARS formed, was never nearly so fruitful or mission minded--that split was certainly a marker on our long decline as a denomination. Remember "400,000 by 2000!" In some ways it seemed as if our heart were cut out and all ministry became "local" in a selfish way. It wasn't even fun to go to Synod anymore.
Now, if we take what Synod 2022 said seriously, (and we must or let's not even pretend that we are a creedal denomination anymore), concerning the fact that practicing homosexuality was a matter of the confessions and a violation of the seventh commandment as described in the Heidelberg catechism, we will lose another substantial part of the church. We have probably 30 to 40 percent of our Calvin University and Seminary professors who can no longer sign with good conscience the form of subscription. We will lose our left-wing too and become a flightless, pathetic thing that used to call itself a significant denomination.
I fear what will remain will be two (again polarized) groups that might well soon decide they can't break Bread either:
1) the old guard CRC, much like that of our parents, who believed in the biblical covenants and in conventionally married two parent families, Christian education, strong involvement in and support of a local creedal CRC, with a firm belief in the need for an educated clergy, and local leadership that took the calling very seriously.
2) that significant part of the current CRC that considers itself "Christian Nationalist" most importantly.
So what we might have before us is four tiny and victimized fellowships that think little of Christ's mission and only of the most recent wounds inflicted on us by "the other".
I greatly hope that such initiatives as you suggest in this might actually loosen some of our stiff necked character (part of which might be ethnically based) and change minds. I fear though that if your aim is to get us to put our differences behind us, assume some sort of "local option" and amble sweetly into the future in order to do meaningful ministry together, we can't, we won't. Yours In Christ, Rev. John F Schuurman
Certainly, as you say so well, if 'Kinism' is judged to be a heresy, then CRT most certainly must be.
I have two reasons for my "fears" of CRT: 1) It is both historicaly (in general) myopic and particularly so in terms of the history of redemption that we understand through reformed theology. It is myopic in terms of world history in that it fails to consider that -- save for the last hundred (or so) years, the world has never NOT had open chattel slavery. This change tto a relatively slavery-free world is to be celebrated. What CRT does is intentionally obscure this change lest it rob the Marxist philosophy behind it of a permanent and easily identified (skin color) identifiable underclass and oppressor class. It encourages the worldview that black and brown skinned people will forever and always be the victims and that they were not -- in fact -- blessed by our creator with his very image. Similarly, in terms of Reformed theology, CRT (if embraced by the CRC) would sweep aside the systematic and gradual approach that God has used to prepare the way, all in his perfect time, for bringing the new creation in all its fullness. We have both Paul's letter to Philemon plus the much cited Galations 3:28 to speak for us on that. Of course none of what I have said sweeps aside the mandate to be valiant and untiring workers and warriors in the fight against racism. However CRT amounts to a religion itself in that it replaces the sovereignty of God as the center of world and national and salvation history and replaces pepetual class war -- and in this case, race -- as the hub around which we understand our world and our being.
Related to my fear of myopia in terms of history (world, national, or salvation), is that CRT forever burdens the non-white races with low expectations in their own and in others eyes. We have been doing ever so much better batteling these low expectations in recent decades because of the great leaders God has raised up from all races. But replacing EVERYTHING! with such a view will make racial hatred indelible on all future generations, deny the clear progress that has been made toward equality, and replace my identity as a child of God with my several other 'identities': i.e. white, male, educated, heterosexual, and comfortable economically, as more important. I AM disabled physically which might sneak me into the 'partially oppressed' realm of things so I might have a little bit less to fear, but probabably not.
Synod needs to study post-modernism and how it has been influenced by Marxism and how it has now -- dressed up as anti-racism -- foisted on us CRT.
“… all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Galatians 3:27-29
Imagine with me: Say you are somewhere in a reflective mood – perhaps on a walk down a country path – or, stuck in traffic, (and already have abandoned hope of getting home on time) – just somewhere thinking -- and you start ruminating on what seems to be the chief issue of the current political era: “What is your identity?” or, “Which of your various ‘identities’ is most important in shaping you?”
When and if you do that, which of your many identity markers is primary in your mind? Does one of them always have first place or are there a few (or even several) that contest with each other for primacy? Is there a top three? A top five? If you are playing along with me here, of the twenty choices listed below please consider what the top three (or five) would be. And, a follow-up question to ask yourself: “If I was asked to do this publically, would my answers be different than doing it by myself?”
Occupation/Career
Favorite Team (“I bleed BLUE!”)
Gender
Nationality
Political Party/political tendency
Ethnicity/Race
Unique Ability
Special Need
Family/Marital Status
Generation (boomer, post-millennial)
Primary Fear (your Kryptonite)
Brand Name Allegiance (“I’m a Ford man.”)
Educational Level
Hobby
Religion/Denomination
Economic Level/”Class”
Body Type
Addictions
Affections (animals, cooking, etc.)
Hatreds
Other
Okay, me first. I think I would probably put my top three in this order: 1. Religion, 2. Family status, 3. Educational level. After that I’d have to start putting in embarrassing stuff such as “Denver Bronco Fan” and “Chicago Bears Loather.” But then, sure, the very close runner ups and struggling for a spot in the top five: Special Need or disability, and then the “also rans” (in no particular order), Affections (stories – literature, film), Economic Status, Occupation, Ethnicity, Nationality, etc. Like you, I could probably go through the whole list and give each its rank (ties allowed) and add several more in the “Other” category.
In 12 Step Groups such as AA, if someone speaks they begin with, “Hi, I’m ______ and I’m an alcoholic.” That tradition is a longstanding one in the 12 Step movement and it underscores how powerful an addiction is in an addict’s life. It ranks number one, right after their name, and intentionally next to it. They name the thing that rules or wants to rule their life.
In our political culture today, identity, too, seems to be the main driver. It seems to me that our mass media, following some political and sociological thinkers, have taken it on themselves to assign race and sexual identity to the top spots for all of us.
This ranking your identities feels risky so I hasten to say, “Be careful with it but give it a try – it’s good for you.” In our current culture which is so heavily polarized in so many ways regarding identity, I think it a useful exercise for you and me to NAME these things and then to give them their place in our consciousness. In doing so we intentionally place in front of ourselves our economic and political class, our privilege (or lack), our obsessions (silly or serious), our fragilities, our superiorities, and the direction our hearts lean.
Paul, in his letter to the Galatians, tells us and his first readers that though they have several identities, all of the markers recede into nothingness in light of God’s people’s place in the covenant in Christ Jesus. It is not only our personal relationship to Christ that Paul means by “in Christ” or “with Christ” it is our standing shoulder to shoulder with all the others so situated – by baptism and the Holy Spirit – with Christ whether they be circumcised or uncircumcised, slave or free, male or female, doctor, lawyer, Indian chief, Sox fan or Cubs fan, that makes the difference. Paul says, in Christ we are co-heirs of Abraham and belong to no other tribe that counts.
Many of our different identities whether chosen by us or thrust on us by birth are important and many are frivolous. But Paul says that within the context of the church and the kingdom of God, these things fade to nothing.
How wonderful it would be if we, in all our settings and all our doings with our fellow humans, treated our myriad differences as merely matters of fun and interest rather than as animosity signals.
Posted in: Post-Synod: An Alternative Way Forward
Brothers and Sisters in Christ,
I've been thinking about the last three or four decades of the CRCNA and am thinking it likely that we might see an exodus from the church's left-wing because of our inability to break bread together over the sexuality issue much as we saw an exodus in the 1990s and 2000s from the right wing over the issue of WICO. The loss of the right wing in the last decades greatly hurt the church. The caucus of the left was maybe jubilant for a while thinking we finally had our backdoor revival. But synod, after The URC and MARS formed, was never nearly so fruitful or mission minded--that split was certainly a marker on our long decline as a denomination. Remember "400,000 by 2000!" In some ways it seemed as if our heart were cut out and all ministry became "local" in a selfish way. It wasn't even fun to go to Synod anymore.
Now, if we take what Synod 2022 said seriously, (and we must or let's not even pretend that we are a creedal denomination anymore), concerning the fact that practicing homosexuality was a matter of the confessions and a violation of the seventh commandment as described in the Heidelberg catechism, we will lose another substantial part of the church. We have probably 30 to 40 percent of our Calvin University and Seminary professors who can no longer sign with good conscience the form of subscription. We will lose our left-wing too and become a flightless, pathetic thing that used to call itself a significant denomination.
I fear what will remain will be two (again polarized) groups that might well soon decide they can't break Bread either:
1) the old guard CRC, much like that of our parents, who believed in the biblical covenants and in conventionally married two parent families, Christian education, strong involvement in and support of a local creedal CRC, with a firm belief in the need for an educated clergy, and local leadership that took the calling very seriously.
2) that significant part of the current CRC that considers itself "Christian Nationalist" most importantly.
So what we might have before us is four tiny and victimized fellowships that think little of Christ's mission and only of the most recent wounds inflicted on us by "the other".
I greatly hope that such initiatives as you suggest in this might actually loosen some of our stiff necked character (part of which might be ethnically based) and change minds. I fear though that if your aim is to get us to put our differences behind us, assume some sort of "local option" and amble sweetly into the future in order to do meaningful ministry together, we can't, we won't.
Yours In Christ,
Rev. John F Schuurman
Posted in: Share Your 3-Word Prayer for the Human Sexuality Conversation
Lead, kindly Light.
Posted in: Share Your 3-Word Prayer for the Human Sexuality Conversation
Thine is the glory
Posted in: Fear, Flukes & Critical Race Theory
Thanks for posting this response.
Certainly, as you say so well, if 'Kinism' is judged to be a heresy, then CRT most certainly must be.
I have two reasons for my "fears" of CRT: 1) It is both historicaly (in general) myopic and particularly so in terms of the history of redemption that we understand through reformed theology. It is myopic in terms of world history in that it fails to consider that -- save for the last hundred (or so) years, the world has never NOT had open chattel slavery. This change tto a relatively slavery-free world is to be celebrated. What CRT does is intentionally obscure this change lest it rob the Marxist philosophy behind it of a permanent and easily identified (skin color) identifiable underclass and oppressor class. It encourages the worldview that black and brown skinned people will forever and always be the victims and that they were not -- in fact -- blessed by our creator with his very image. Similarly, in terms of Reformed theology, CRT (if embraced by the CRC) would sweep aside the systematic and gradual approach that God has used to prepare the way, all in his perfect time, for bringing the new creation in all its fullness. We have both Paul's letter to Philemon plus the much cited Galations 3:28 to speak for us on that. Of course none of what I have said sweeps aside the mandate to be valiant and untiring workers and warriors in the fight against racism. However CRT amounts to a religion itself in that it replaces the sovereignty of God as the center of world and national and salvation history and replaces pepetual class war -- and in this case, race -- as the hub around which we understand our world and our being.
Related to my fear of myopia in terms of history (world, national, or salvation), is that CRT forever burdens the non-white races with low expectations in their own and in others eyes. We have been doing ever so much better batteling these low expectations in recent decades because of the great leaders God has raised up from all races. But replacing EVERYTHING! with such a view will make racial hatred indelible on all future generations, deny the clear progress that has been made toward equality, and replace my identity as a child of God with my several other 'identities': i.e. white, male, educated, heterosexual, and comfortable economically, as more important. I AM disabled physically which might sneak me into the 'partially oppressed' realm of things so I might have a little bit less to fear, but probabably not.
Synod needs to study post-modernism and how it has been influenced by Marxism and how it has now -- dressed up as anti-racism -- foisted on us CRT.
Posted in: Fear, Flukes & Critical Race Theory
Rank Your Identities
“… all of you who were baptized into Christ have clothed yourselves with Christ. There is neither Jew nor Greek, slave nor free, male nor female, for you are all one in Christ Jesus. If you belong to Christ, then you are Abraham’s seed, and heirs according to the promise.” Galatians 3:27-29
Imagine with me: Say you are somewhere in a reflective mood – perhaps on a walk down a country path – or, stuck in traffic, (and already have abandoned hope of getting home on time) – just somewhere thinking -- and you start ruminating on what seems to be the chief issue of the current political era: “What is your identity?” or, “Which of your various ‘identities’ is most important in shaping you?”
When and if you do that, which of your many identity markers is primary in your mind? Does one of them always have first place or are there a few (or even several) that contest with each other for primacy? Is there a top three? A top five? If you are playing along with me here, of the twenty choices listed below please consider what the top three (or five) would be. And, a follow-up question to ask yourself: “If I was asked to do this publically, would my answers be different than doing it by myself?”
Occupation/Career
Favorite Team (“I bleed BLUE!”)
Gender
Nationality
Political Party/political tendency
Ethnicity/Race
Unique Ability
Special Need
Family/Marital Status
Generation (boomer, post-millennial)
Primary Fear (your Kryptonite)
Brand Name Allegiance (“I’m a Ford man.”)
Educational Level
Hobby
Religion/Denomination
Economic Level/”Class”
Body Type
Addictions
Affections (animals, cooking, etc.)
Hatreds
Other
Okay, me first. I think I would probably put my top three in this order: 1. Religion, 2. Family status, 3. Educational level. After that I’d have to start putting in embarrassing stuff such as “Denver Bronco Fan” and “Chicago Bears Loather.” But then, sure, the very close runner ups and struggling for a spot in the top five: Special Need or disability, and then the “also rans” (in no particular order), Affections (stories – literature, film), Economic Status, Occupation, Ethnicity, Nationality, etc. Like you, I could probably go through the whole list and give each its rank (ties allowed) and add several more in the “Other” category.
In 12 Step Groups such as AA, if someone speaks they begin with, “Hi, I’m ______ and I’m an alcoholic.” That tradition is a longstanding one in the 12 Step movement and it underscores how powerful an addiction is in an addict’s life. It ranks number one, right after their name, and intentionally next to it. They name the thing that rules or wants to rule their life.
In our political culture today, identity, too, seems to be the main driver. It seems to me that our mass media, following some political and sociological thinkers, have taken it on themselves to assign race and sexual identity to the top spots for all of us.
This ranking your identities feels risky so I hasten to say, “Be careful with it but give it a try – it’s good for you.” In our current culture which is so heavily polarized in so many ways regarding identity, I think it a useful exercise for you and me to NAME these things and then to give them their place in our consciousness. In doing so we intentionally place in front of ourselves our economic and political class, our privilege (or lack), our obsessions (silly or serious), our fragilities, our superiorities, and the direction our hearts lean.
Paul, in his letter to the Galatians, tells us and his first readers that though they have several identities, all of the markers recede into nothingness in light of God’s people’s place in the covenant in Christ Jesus. It is not only our personal relationship to Christ that Paul means by “in Christ” or “with Christ” it is our standing shoulder to shoulder with all the others so situated – by baptism and the Holy Spirit – with Christ whether they be circumcised or uncircumcised, slave or free, male or female, doctor, lawyer, Indian chief, Sox fan or Cubs fan, that makes the difference. Paul says, in Christ we are co-heirs of Abraham and belong to no other tribe that counts.
Many of our different identities whether chosen by us or thrust on us by birth are important and many are frivolous. But Paul says that within the context of the church and the kingdom of God, these things fade to nothing.
How wonderful it would be if we, in all our settings and all our doings with our fellow humans, treated our myriad differences as merely matters of fun and interest rather than as animosity signals.
By John Schuurman