Isn't the opposite the true challenge? Has there ever been a time in the history of the Protestant tradition - particularly the Reformed branch; more particularly the CRC branch - that homosexual acts were considered anything other than unchastity? Doesn't the burden of proof lie with those who desire to say that homosexuality acts are not unchaste?
The phrases "what is currently called" and "in a committed same-sex relationship" are red herrings. Homosexual acts are homosexual acts, just as lust is lust and adultery is adultery. There is no modern, sophisticated form of acceptable lust or adultery that the Bible could not anticipate.
Certainly there are other forms of unchastity that CRC synods have never made pronouncements on. Does it follow that as an elder I am free to promote and engage in any activity not specifically declared to fall within unchastity (or greed, covetousness, pick your category of sin) without fear of being judged to be contra-confessional?
Beyond that, does not Belgic Article 29 become utterly meaningless as to the practice of discipline if it is thought that each matter worthy of discipline must be individually and specifically enumerated by Synod? So, for discipline to be a confessional matter do we have to have a synodical reference for every kind of sin that is worthy of discipline? Can DeMoor point to a time when Synod did not consider homosexual acts to be sinful and worthy of discipline?
"Pastors and elders will have room to maneuver in being pastoral and biblical in whatever circumstances their members find themselves."
Ah, but therein lies the rub. Pastors and elders already have plenty of room to be "pastoral and biblical" in their local contexts. But if we agree together that certain matters are by definition not "biblical", then how can we simultaneously say that pastors and elders allowing such activity in their local context are being "pastoral and biblical"? It simply isn't coherent to say "A" and "Not A" are simultaneously true. And frankly, it seems to me that the CRC's practice of saying exactly that on the matter of WIO has led us down a road where we have fooled ourselves into thinking that is a coherent and sustainable philosophy of joint ministry. It simply cannot hold.
I hear your heart for unity and I honor it. I acknowledge the pain and misery that you have seen caused by church splits and to a degree I echo those observations. With that, I offer the following thoughts:
1. In light of your significant concern over church splits, have you publicly chastised the minority that has tirelessly taught against established church teaching and has been unwilling to rest with the multiple decisions of synod on this matter? I have not seen you do so publicly despite the fact that this faction has fomented significant discord and has pressed matters in such a way as to cause division rather than stay peaceably or leave peaceably.
2. As to the RCA and not wanting to follow their path, have you not seen that they have had a significant period of supposed live-and-let-live? How well has that worked out for them?
3. Not all partings are hostile, and they need not be. Yes, the history of the church tells us that they often are. But they need not be if we are willing to love each other enough to be honest and respectful at the same time. The history of the church in holding together disparate beliefs in the same body or organization is not stellar either, so the choice isn't the hard work of splitting well versus the easy work of staying together well. Each poses significant challenges for living in love. If we don't believe the same things, what good is a charade of unity? Does the CRC then exist to propagate Dutch cultural practices in North America?
4. Splitting does not always mean further fracturing of the church or less unity. The CRC already is separated from other churches in organization, and that by choice. If the CRC splits and churches affiliate elsewhere, that is not less unity, it is instead a different-looking form of the balance of unity and separation.
5. Your attempts to minimize the differences involved are not convincing to me. You use the phrases "one issue" and "two words" in such a way as to minimize what is at stake. I believe you are not fully grasping or willing to admit the depth of difference involved. First, LGBTQIA+ goes much further than just LG and the question of committed unions. Surely you are not unaware of the significant and far reaching ramifications of the anthropological philosophies that lead one to posit the biblical normality of TQIA+. And surely you are not unaware that the normalization of B leads to host of questions regarding the "committed" part of committed unions. Beyond that, there are basic questions underlying how we arrive at truth. Is truth defined/derived by experience? Are there different "truths"? Does General Revelation supersede Special Revelation or vice versa? Also, if we cannot have unity on this matter, how can we have unity on any other matters of morality if everything is up for grabs based on local "pastoral" sensitivity? Surely you do not suppose that our differences will end at matters of LGBTQIA+ when our underlying sources of truth are so divergent. History teaches us that such is not the case. Scripture also exhibits this phenomenon and instructs us accordingly.
6. I'm not sure how you conclude that "Synods are there to help us stay together". Is that a specific charge for Synod? Supposing for a moment that this is an accurate statement of Synod's role, does it not follow that Synod then is charged with maintaining an atmosphere in the denomination that does not foment further disunity in belief? Should not Synod have acted long ago on A1B and the churches of GRE who insist on teaching against the established doctrine of the church? Instead, Synod has allowed this topic to fester and has allowed open flouting of church doctrine on matters of morality. How that promotes and leads to lasting unity (staying together) in the CRC escapes me.
7. You are rightly concerned about our witness to the world, but you examine it only from one direction. What kind of witness to world are we when we exist with mutually exclusive positions and even worldviews? What kind of witness to the world are we when we cannot agree on matters of morality? Does that not simply fuel more worldly belief in the subjectivity and individuality of moral choices? What kind of witness to the world are we when we allow the world to dictate church teaching and practice - surely you cannot think that the church is leading the culture in the acceptance of LGBTQIA+ normalization. Surely it is the other way around, which witnesses to our culture that we will follow them into truth. There is more at stake in our witness to the world than simple organizational maintenance. The world doesn't give a gnat's behind as to whether or not the CRC exists as an organization of churches - but the world is heavily invested in the church looking and thinking like the world.
Your willingness and desire to interact here is helpful and encouraging. I appreciate you and your viewpoint.
It seems to me that Trevor was being descriptive, not pejorative. He said "older", not "old" as you say. He was actually, I think, referencing that this is an age-group that he would prefer to look up to, but that he finds what some/too many of this group are advocating for to be poor. I think Trevor honors you in his desire to see you as setting a tone in the denomination. Are you not properly seen as "older" - elder statesman, so to speak - in this conversation? You do speak of yourself as growing up in the Netherlands in the 1950's, which would seem to qualify you as being "older". I don't think it is ad hominem to recognize such a fact.
If I am reading Christian Reformed Church Order Commentary by Henry DeMoor, are the thoughts of Henry DeMoor irrelevant to understanding what is written?
"So it is whether the synod of the CRCNA has ever insisted that "unchastity" includes homosexual activity." This standard, consistently applied, would make our confessions essentially toothless or even meaningless. If every word is open to fanciful re-definition if Synod has not "insisted" that it be understood to be it's common and historic definition then we are left with documents that have no objective meaning. The CRC (along with the vast majority of the historic and global church) has never understood unchastity to be anything other than inclusive of homosexual activity, an act of sexual immorality. That you seek to invert the burden of proof is not compelling.
Paul, that line of reasoning is valid to a degree, but has limitations on applicability unless we are willing to enter the realm of the absurd. Does murder include the actual unlawful taking of a human life? Can we possibly know definitively? Should local congregations be able to decide if they consider the unlawful taking of a human life in their temporal and geographical context to be included in their understanding of murder?
I grant that DeMoor's challenge has not been met, but I deem it as proving nothing other that showing that Synod did not say something that it needn't have said in order for the language of the Confessions (and more is at stake than just HC 109) to have actual meaning. If I challenge you to tell me when you quit beating your wife and you fail to meet the challenge, does that make my challenge legitimate? The simple fact that DeMoor's challenge has not been met does not really prove anything. I think we understand the point he is making, but we disagree with it. Also, he has gone on to make other points, some of which we also disagree with.
Beyond that, if the CRC has agreed (as you stipulate above, and you say that DeMoor stipulates) that homosexual sex is sinful, the only category it can fall into is the category of unchastity. It is incoherent to claim that we agree homosexual sex is sinful according to the Bible, but that agreement does not mean that we understand according to our Catechism that God forbids such unchastity. It is by definition a form of unchastity if we agree that it is sexual immorality.
I think the Kinism matter is apples and oranges. There is are no broad cultural forces pushing for acceptance of Kinism, nor are their swaths of the church pushing for its normalization and pointing to the academy for their support.
Consider just how many times the CRC (and the broader orthodox church) has affirmed the sinfulness of homosexual sex. The point isn't that it was never worth studying. The point is it is absurd to take an understanding so historically entrenched and recently affirmed numerous times and then act as if that understanding is questionable as to its implications for the plain language of the confession. Homosexual acts have *always* been understood in the CRC to be sexually immoral, to be unchaste. To now say that office bearers are free to promote, engage in, and accept unchastity, contra the Confessions, in their local context because Synod never explicitly said they would receive discipline for such seems to me to be absurd.
Your post notes the following: "We’ll be moderating comments that make significant claims outside of the writer’s lived experience and expertise." That is quite a broad statement. Will this standard be applied without preference? For instance, can I expect that women will have their comments moderated if they make any significant claims about men or vice versa? Clearly women don’t have the lived experience of being a man, so their comments about the thoughts, actions, attitudes, and experiences of men should be off-limits under this standard, correct?
Hitting closer to home for denominational employees, will you moderate the comments and posts of non-Caucasian CRC employees who post on The Network and make significant claims about Caucasians, thus clearly making claims outside of their lived experience? What about CRC employees who live and work in the Grand Rapids area commenting about the dynamics of life of the church in disperse locations with completely different dynamics? Are these comments not well outside of the lived experience of those employees? Is there any reason why this standard should not be applied robustly to employees of the denomination, you know, so they can demonstrate leading by example? How do you plan to justly (without preference, i.e. Leviticus 19:15: "Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.") apply such a broad and subjective standard?
Closing questions:
1. If I comment, how do you propose to judge what is outside of my lived experience? Is not the question of my lived experience by definition outside of your lived experience, and thus something that you are precluded from judging, by the standard you have set?
2. Relatedly, but not fully the same, how do you propose to judge in what matters I have expertise?
3. If my feelings are hurt by any number of posts and comments on the Network, are my feelings important enough to trigger a post or comment moderation? If not, is there a reason why my feelings are unimportant?
4. Perhaps most importantly, can you provide rationale from Scripture that supports the idea that brothers and sisters in the church cannot speak publicly on matters outside of their “lived experience”? Can you see the danger of truth being determined by lived experience and love being judged by how someone feels about what is said?
Kristen, my questions were unique and not previously addressed. If you refuse to engage with them, just say so. Also, is there a reason why my other comment was removed?
To the extent that Ocasio-Cortez has previously defended and supported her close friend in her calling President Trump a motherfu*#er, we really don't have to use our imaginations too much. The reaction was predictable. Supporters of the two ladies defended them, while those of differing perspective spoke against them and the "rudely maligning" language that was used. Perhaps they feel that President Trump is not worthy of honor and respect, and I suppose to great extent I agree with them if we think of things on a merely secular, personal level. But if we move beyond the personal, we realize there is an office that deserves respect (which Ocasio-Cortez herself stressed in noting that she is a Congresswoman). And if we move past the secular, we realize that for Christians, such rude maligning is never acceptable. I suspect that Bonnie would have gotten less of a negative reaction if she would have chosen an example who was more consistent in her calls for civility and respect. Whether Bonnie wants to recognize the pattern or not, there is a partisan (not political) slant that comes from her and much of the rest of the CRC bureaucracy that inevitably gets push-back. It would be nice to see the various employees listen instead of doubling down on regular partisanship.
And for what it's worth, your comment implies that complementarians are simply an "old boy's club" filled with men who "fear the loss of power". Many will perceive such a characterization as a rude maligning, including my wife and mother, who I happen to believe are deserving of respect and honor.
Posted in: 25 Years After ‘Flood’ - What Do You Recall?
Interesting. I had never seen that.
I will never not be intrigued by the concept of a prosthetic forehead on my real head. :)
Posted in: Status Confessionis
Isn't the opposite the true challenge? Has there ever been a time in the history of the Protestant tradition - particularly the Reformed branch; more particularly the CRC branch - that homosexual acts were considered anything other than unchastity? Doesn't the burden of proof lie with those who desire to say that homosexuality acts are not unchaste?
The phrases "what is currently called" and "in a committed same-sex relationship" are red herrings. Homosexual acts are homosexual acts, just as lust is lust and adultery is adultery. There is no modern, sophisticated form of acceptable lust or adultery that the Bible could not anticipate.
Certainly there are other forms of unchastity that CRC synods have never made pronouncements on. Does it follow that as an elder I am free to promote and engage in any activity not specifically declared to fall within unchastity (or greed, covetousness, pick your category of sin) without fear of being judged to be contra-confessional?
Beyond that, does not Belgic Article 29 become utterly meaningless as to the practice of discipline if it is thought that each matter worthy of discipline must be individually and specifically enumerated by Synod? So, for discipline to be a confessional matter do we have to have a synodical reference for every kind of sin that is worthy of discipline? Can DeMoor point to a time when Synod did not consider homosexual acts to be sinful and worthy of discipline?
Posted in: Status Confessionis
"Pastors and elders will have room to maneuver in being pastoral and biblical in whatever circumstances their members find themselves."
Ah, but therein lies the rub. Pastors and elders already have plenty of room to be "pastoral and biblical" in their local contexts. But if we agree together that certain matters are by definition not "biblical", then how can we simultaneously say that pastors and elders allowing such activity in their local context are being "pastoral and biblical"? It simply isn't coherent to say "A" and "Not A" are simultaneously true. And frankly, it seems to me that the CRC's practice of saying exactly that on the matter of WIO has led us down a road where we have fooled ourselves into thinking that is a coherent and sustainable philosophy of joint ministry. It simply cannot hold.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
Hi Henry,
I hear your heart for unity and I honor it. I acknowledge the pain and misery that you have seen caused by church splits and to a degree I echo those observations. With that, I offer the following thoughts:
1. In light of your significant concern over church splits, have you publicly chastised the minority that has tirelessly taught against established church teaching and has been unwilling to rest with the multiple decisions of synod on this matter? I have not seen you do so publicly despite the fact that this faction has fomented significant discord and has pressed matters in such a way as to cause division rather than stay peaceably or leave peaceably.
2. As to the RCA and not wanting to follow their path, have you not seen that they have had a significant period of supposed live-and-let-live? How well has that worked out for them?
3. Not all partings are hostile, and they need not be. Yes, the history of the church tells us that they often are. But they need not be if we are willing to love each other enough to be honest and respectful at the same time. The history of the church in holding together disparate beliefs in the same body or organization is not stellar either, so the choice isn't the hard work of splitting well versus the easy work of staying together well. Each poses significant challenges for living in love. If we don't believe the same things, what good is a charade of unity? Does the CRC then exist to propagate Dutch cultural practices in North America?
4. Splitting does not always mean further fracturing of the church or less unity. The CRC already is separated from other churches in organization, and that by choice. If the CRC splits and churches affiliate elsewhere, that is not less unity, it is instead a different-looking form of the balance of unity and separation.
5. Your attempts to minimize the differences involved are not convincing to me. You use the phrases "one issue" and "two words" in such a way as to minimize what is at stake. I believe you are not fully grasping or willing to admit the depth of difference involved. First, LGBTQIA+ goes much further than just LG and the question of committed unions. Surely you are not unaware of the significant and far reaching ramifications of the anthropological philosophies that lead one to posit the biblical normality of TQIA+. And surely you are not unaware that the normalization of B leads to host of questions regarding the "committed" part of committed unions. Beyond that, there are basic questions underlying how we arrive at truth. Is truth defined/derived by experience? Are there different "truths"? Does General Revelation supersede Special Revelation or vice versa? Also, if we cannot have unity on this matter, how can we have unity on any other matters of morality if everything is up for grabs based on local "pastoral" sensitivity? Surely you do not suppose that our differences will end at matters of LGBTQIA+ when our underlying sources of truth are so divergent. History teaches us that such is not the case. Scripture also exhibits this phenomenon and instructs us accordingly.
6. I'm not sure how you conclude that "Synods are there to help us stay together". Is that a specific charge for Synod? Supposing for a moment that this is an accurate statement of Synod's role, does it not follow that Synod then is charged with maintaining an atmosphere in the denomination that does not foment further disunity in belief? Should not Synod have acted long ago on A1B and the churches of GRE who insist on teaching against the established doctrine of the church? Instead, Synod has allowed this topic to fester and has allowed open flouting of church doctrine on matters of morality. How that promotes and leads to lasting unity (staying together) in the CRC escapes me.
7. You are rightly concerned about our witness to the world, but you examine it only from one direction. What kind of witness to world are we when we exist with mutually exclusive positions and even worldviews? What kind of witness to the world are we when we cannot agree on matters of morality? Does that not simply fuel more worldly belief in the subjectivity and individuality of moral choices? What kind of witness to the world are we when we allow the world to dictate church teaching and practice - surely you cannot think that the church is leading the culture in the acceptance of LGBTQIA+ normalization. Surely it is the other way around, which witnesses to our culture that we will follow them into truth. There is more at stake in our witness to the world than simple organizational maintenance. The world doesn't give a gnat's behind as to whether or not the CRC exists as an organization of churches - but the world is heavily invested in the church looking and thinking like the world.
Your willingness and desire to interact here is helpful and encouraging. I appreciate you and your viewpoint.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
It seems to me that Trevor was being descriptive, not pejorative. He said "older", not "old" as you say. He was actually, I think, referencing that this is an age-group that he would prefer to look up to, but that he finds what some/too many of this group are advocating for to be poor. I think Trevor honors you in his desire to see you as setting a tone in the denomination. Are you not properly seen as "older" - elder statesman, so to speak - in this conversation? You do speak of yourself as growing up in the Netherlands in the 1950's, which would seem to qualify you as being "older". I don't think it is ad hominem to recognize such a fact.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
If I am reading Christian Reformed Church Order Commentary by Henry DeMoor, are the thoughts of Henry DeMoor irrelevant to understanding what is written?
"So it is whether the synod of the CRCNA has ever insisted that "unchastity" includes homosexual activity." This standard, consistently applied, would make our confessions essentially toothless or even meaningless. If every word is open to fanciful re-definition if Synod has not "insisted" that it be understood to be it's common and historic definition then we are left with documents that have no objective meaning. The CRC (along with the vast majority of the historic and global church) has never understood unchastity to be anything other than inclusive of homosexual activity, an act of sexual immorality. That you seek to invert the burden of proof is not compelling.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
Paul, that line of reasoning is valid to a degree, but has limitations on applicability unless we are willing to enter the realm of the absurd. Does murder include the actual unlawful taking of a human life? Can we possibly know definitively? Should local congregations be able to decide if they consider the unlawful taking of a human life in their temporal and geographical context to be included in their understanding of murder?
I grant that DeMoor's challenge has not been met, but I deem it as proving nothing other that showing that Synod did not say something that it needn't have said in order for the language of the Confessions (and more is at stake than just HC 109) to have actual meaning. If I challenge you to tell me when you quit beating your wife and you fail to meet the challenge, does that make my challenge legitimate? The simple fact that DeMoor's challenge has not been met does not really prove anything. I think we understand the point he is making, but we disagree with it. Also, he has gone on to make other points, some of which we also disagree with.
Beyond that, if the CRC has agreed (as you stipulate above, and you say that DeMoor stipulates) that homosexual sex is sinful, the only category it can fall into is the category of unchastity. It is incoherent to claim that we agree homosexual sex is sinful according to the Bible, but that agreement does not mean that we understand according to our Catechism that God forbids such unchastity. It is by definition a form of unchastity if we agree that it is sexual immorality.
Posted in: Status Confessionis
Hi Paul,
I think the Kinism matter is apples and oranges. There is are no broad cultural forces pushing for acceptance of Kinism, nor are their swaths of the church pushing for its normalization and pointing to the academy for their support.
Consider just how many times the CRC (and the broader orthodox church) has affirmed the sinfulness of homosexual sex. The point isn't that it was never worth studying. The point is it is absurd to take an understanding so historically entrenched and recently affirmed numerous times and then act as if that understanding is questionable as to its implications for the plain language of the confession. Homosexual acts have *always* been understood in the CRC to be sexually immoral, to be unchaste. To now say that office bearers are free to promote, engage in, and accept unchastity, contra the Confessions, in their local context because Synod never explicitly said they would receive discipline for such seems to me to be absurd.
Posted in: "Censorship" on The Network
Hi Kristen,
Your post notes the following: "We’ll be moderating comments that make significant claims outside of the writer’s lived experience and expertise." That is quite a broad statement. Will this standard be applied without preference? For instance, can I expect that women will have their comments moderated if they make any significant claims about men or vice versa? Clearly women don’t have the lived experience of being a man, so their comments about the thoughts, actions, attitudes, and experiences of men should be off-limits under this standard, correct?
Hitting closer to home for denominational employees, will you moderate the comments and posts of non-Caucasian CRC employees who post on The Network and make significant claims about Caucasians, thus clearly making claims outside of their lived experience? What about CRC employees who live and work in the Grand Rapids area commenting about the dynamics of life of the church in disperse locations with completely different dynamics? Are these comments not well outside of the lived experience of those employees? Is there any reason why this standard should not be applied robustly to employees of the denomination, you know, so they can demonstrate leading by example? How do you plan to justly (without preference, i.e. Leviticus 19:15: "Do not pervert justice; do not show partiality to the poor or favoritism to the great, but judge your neighbor fairly.") apply such a broad and subjective standard?
Closing questions:
1. If I comment, how do you propose to judge what is outside of my lived experience? Is not the question of my lived experience by definition outside of your lived experience, and thus something that you are precluded from judging, by the standard you have set?
2. Relatedly, but not fully the same, how do you propose to judge in what matters I have expertise?
3. If my feelings are hurt by any number of posts and comments on the Network, are my feelings important enough to trigger a post or comment moderation? If not, is there a reason why my feelings are unimportant?
4. Perhaps most importantly, can you provide rationale from Scripture that supports the idea that brothers and sisters in the church cannot speak publicly on matters outside of their “lived experience”? Can you see the danger of truth being determined by lived experience and love being judged by how someone feels about what is said?
Posted in: "Censorship" on The Network
Kristen, my questions were unique and not previously addressed. If you refuse to engage with them, just say so. Also, is there a reason why my other comment was removed?
Posted in: A Reflection: Is This OK?
Hi Kelly,
To the extent that Ocasio-Cortez has previously defended and supported her close friend in her calling President Trump a motherfu*#er, we really don't have to use our imaginations too much. The reaction was predictable. Supporters of the two ladies defended them, while those of differing perspective spoke against them and the "rudely maligning" language that was used. Perhaps they feel that President Trump is not worthy of honor and respect, and I suppose to great extent I agree with them if we think of things on a merely secular, personal level. But if we move beyond the personal, we realize there is an office that deserves respect (which Ocasio-Cortez herself stressed in noting that she is a Congresswoman). And if we move past the secular, we realize that for Christians, such rude maligning is never acceptable. I suspect that Bonnie would have gotten less of a negative reaction if she would have chosen an example who was more consistent in her calls for civility and respect. Whether Bonnie wants to recognize the pattern or not, there is a partisan (not political) slant that comes from her and much of the rest of the CRC bureaucracy that inevitably gets push-back. It would be nice to see the various employees listen instead of doubling down on regular partisanship.
And for what it's worth, your comment implies that complementarians are simply an "old boy's club" filled with men who "fear the loss of power". Many will perceive such a characterization as a rude maligning, including my wife and mother, who I happen to believe are deserving of respect and honor.
Posted in: Share Something Encouraging and Be Entered in Our Giveaway
"This is the day that the LORD has made; let us rejoice and be glad in it." Psalm 118:24