I am glad this is being distributed to help inform prayers and conversation about the elements of building peace for Ukraine. I wonder why the story does not mention the Canadian Council of Churches, the primary leader of this initiative, of which the CRC in Canada is also a member. We owe credit and appreciation to the Council for the careful analysis, thoughtful articulation, and bringing together a very wide range of Christian leaders - not just evangelicals - to join together in prayers for peace.
I appreciate the need for a different forum to have a new conversation about women in the CRCNA. May I suggest the importance of considering larger Biblical teachings, such as justice for women within the CRCNA. Yes, we can disagree about what justice means, but it is a relevant Biblical principle, as much as specific instructions to specific churches about who could teach on not in a particular context.
May I add a few points from history and current context:
1. I noted the question about the 1970's and feminism, with an assumption that was the motivation. That is inaccurate and continues to be a reason to dismiss legitimate issues. I have been active since the beginning: the origins were and remain a desire to use all gifts of all women in ministry, not feminism. Opponents raised the bogeyman of "feminism" as a way to dismiss the concerns and claim women were just motivated by secular evils. This is important because this pattern continues today and gets in the way of productive dialogue.
2. The focus on using all gifts of all women is missional in origin, recognizing all kinds of diversification in the society to which we are to witness as Christians. It was also part of the work on addressing abuse in the CRC, after a 1960 report that showed rates of abuse within the church are similar to society at large. The lack of women in any leadership positions was named as an important part of what prevents abuse from being taken seriously. My experience in Safe Church work confirms the importance of having both women and men in leadership positions to deal effectively with abuse within church communities. Even many leaders who oppose women in office will acknowledge the value of having those different perspectives in the decision-making rooms of our churches. Why don't we give any weight to the Biblical teachings about judging by the fruits, when the evidence after 25 years seems abundantly clear that God is blessing the work of women in leadership in the CRC?
3. Justice for all women within the CRCNA is an important consideration for our current context. I hear from women who are silenced in their local churches, under the current policy. I weep about the lost potential, first of all, for women who are called by God and responsible to God first of all for the use of their gifts, who face barriers that we have put in place and refuse to even listen to them, let alone remove barriers to ministry. I weep for the church as I counsel women to take their gifts elsewhere and give priority to their calling before God to use them weill in service to God and their neighbors. I hear from women leaders who continue to face dismissal by men on the grounds that the CRCNA allows them to dismiss women - and there are no effective mechanisms to address these on-going injustices that women face within the CRCNA. I hear valid concerns about decreasing space for women within the CRCNA as the impacts of Synod 2022 and 2023 play out - and no one is naming or addressing this seriously. There is a growing body of research showing the harmful impacts for women and girls of complementarianism in practice. While the CRCNA never endorsed complementarianism for good reasons, it is now accepted within our circles and no one challenges it. I weep because I am complicit in the continuing injustices for women in the CRCNA. I worked for some mechanisms, such as a part-time position to focus on Women in Leadership, now broadened as a supposed improvement under Thrive, but in actuality it means even less focus on justice for women.
Yes, we need a new forum to have a dialogue - one that gives high priority to listening to women, as full moral agents called by God to use their gifts in God's service, and also takes seriously broader Biblical teachings, such as doing justice for women within our own circles, as well as very specific texts that address contexts in which women were considered property. I rejoice that God works outside the church to advance justice for women. When will the CRC join God's on-going work and remove barriers for women to use all their gifts in church and outside,as God calls them to do?
I did not say all men are abusive. It is often that kind of generalizing dismissal that prevents constructive dialogue. The reality is that women who are abused are less likely to disclose what happened if they have to report to a man and/or know it will be discussed and decided by a group of men. We know from experience that secrecy and minimizing what is disclosed is a major barrier - and we know that follow-up to disclosures often stops at the level of councils who often work very closely with persons of concern and often make women feel guilty about raising any issues that might affect the reputation of the church or its leaders. I am speaking from real experience because that is what justice does. Justice, which is a Biblical calling named in far more verses than silencing women, starts with creating a context where women can be heard and then seriously listening to them, without pre-lectures about their duty to submit. Submission is mutual in the Bible - why does it get raised for women, but far less often and with far more emphasis on respect for the leadership for men?
Justice is a core Biblical teaching. It is also part of any hermeneutics that takes seriously the whole teaching of the Scriptures. it received too little attention in the earlier rounds of discussion. Time and experience have provided more evidence for both understanding specific texts and understanding the implications of core themes in the Bible that continue to be unfolded in God''s work in his world. I give thanks to God for using forces outside the church to advance justice for women in society. There is still a lot to be done, e.g. reducing intimate partner violence and domestic violence throughout both churches and society. I wish the CRC was leading in that - it would be a stronger public witness to the good news of the gospel than the continuing focus on excluding women from any leadership positions in the church.
The CRCNA rightly never did endorse complementarism. It is also an ideology. I find it curious that those who label feminism as evil because it is an ideology are willing to endorse another "ism" that reduces women to fit with an ideology. My point, however, was that the work for women in the CRC was not motivated by any ideology. It was motivated by the goal of using all gifts of all women in ministry and respect for the moral agency of women who are called by God and accountable to God first for the use of their God-given gifts. It is very Biblical to remove barriers to God's callings - we see that in the stories of the early church in Acts, for example. There is ample evidence about negative impacts for women and girls in many situations of rigid complementarism. Yes, I realize that may not be all. Again, my point is to avoid both ideologies and deal with the specific realities that affect the ability of women to live out all of their God-given callings within the CRCNA.
I wish the church had been a leader in justice for women and provided models for the larger society, instead of being a laggard. No, I do not think the timing is a coincidence. God often uses other parts of society to teach his church a lesson. That happened in Biblical times and it continues to happen throughout history. I'm thankful God continues God's work throughout creation and history, and is not limited to relying on the church. The question we face is joining God in God's work or continuing to resist and put up barriers. Jesus had some harsh words for church leaders who did that.
I did address the question of what the Bible says by drawing attention to the over-riding theme of justice throughout the Bible. I observed that hermeneutics also needs to consider the context of specific texts and the larger themes of Scripture, instead of using selected, isolated texts as prescriptive commands for all time when they were advice to particular churches in particular contexts where women were considered property I mentioned that the book of Acts includes examples of how the early church worked through somewhat similar challenges. All of these are relevant to an approach to interpreting Scripture, especially in the Reformed branch of Christianity. It is not a matter of pragmatic or the Bible. Jesus also modeled for us a much richer way to learning to live out prior teachings and the Good News of the gospel, including how he modelled full respect for women and children.
Thank you, Bev, for naming the role of mistranslation in the exclusion of women from many roles in churches, and for recognizing the harms done to girls and women and the barriers created for the use of all gifts of all women for God's work in God's world. What puzzles me is that many Bible teachers and pastors now recognize those errors, and also now recognize early women theologians that had been ignored, but do not take any steps to remove barriers for women in ministry in their own church circles.
Historical accuracy is important to learn from it and not repeat harmful patterns. The Canadian Ministries Director was appointed to be the Executive Director for Canada by Synod already in 2014. It reported functionally to the Canada Corp and only administratively to the denominational Executive Director. In addition, between 2010 and 2015, Synod endorsed a number of measures to make binationality function as a "partnership." The SALT report ignores or misrepresents that history; that affected its analysis of the core issues, essentially reverting and then "fixing" something that had already been changed but was not being implemented under the Council of Delegates. The notion of partnership is not new; it was the core of the foundational report on binationality endorsed by Synod before the appointment of leaders in 2014. Having an Executive Director for Canada is not new. That has been repeatedly pointed out and continues to be misrepresented as part of the analysis of the issues and what would be a sustainable solution. That is why Canadians who care about governance find it difficult to see SALT as the "final solution." Changes made since the SALT report are an improvement on what the report recommended. Some of those happened because Canadians spoke up - and those who do are portrayed negatively. That should be a clue to the deeper issues and why some worry this is another "fix" that will erode again and repeat a harmful cycle. At this point in a process that was far more damaging to the church than it should have been, the question should be whether SALT is an adequate solution and the best we can do. If we really learn from history, we should be open to looking at other approaches that address more of the core issues that were not adequately analyzed in the SALT report.
Dan, it can be and has also been the case that individual delegates support more rigid and narrow positions than most of the members of the churches who send them express in other ways. I have even witnessed examples where there is a more open-minded or nuanced overture and a delegate actively pursues a rigid approach that undermines what seems the clear intent of that classis. I have not done a quantitative analysis, but my observation from many years is that this is at least as often the case as what you suspect. I agree representative and deliberative are not opposites.
Using the categories of "ecclesiastical" and "operational" as categories to divide responsibilities, as the SALT report does, is problematic. I would suggest it is also inconsistent with a Reformed understanding. Add the ambiguous definition of "ecclesiastical" and it is more problematic. Narrow, exclusionary, rigid boundaries for what is considered "ecclesiastical" runs counter to a Reformed world and life view. There are other options for effective, practical organizational structures. World Renew provides one example. Contextual ministry is an essential element of a Reformed understanding of our calling as the body of Christ on earth. Taking that seriously can lead to respectful and workable ways of organizing diverse expressions within a larger, unified whole. In my analysis, SALT falls short of providing a long-term sustainable approach for the bi-national context of the CRCNA.
It is also important that the Synod 2022 discussion of a future-oriented, sustainable approach to organizing for effective ministry go beyond "who pays and controls." The relationship between the "church" and its ministries is far more integrated and mutually beneficial that just appealing to individual diaconates for funding. Individual churches and members are not just funders of ministries. When the organization functions well, those ministries also support and help to shape the local church and they provide avenues for individual members to exercise their calling that go far beyond financial donations. I hope the CRC does not sacrifice that richness for rigid rules based on funding; funding should follow function, not drive it.
Thank you for reminding us about the importance of the new commandment, as Jesus also modeled for us. That means giving priority to the impacts of the HSR report for those most affected by it. We know, for example, that labelling intersex children "disordered" does harm - unnecessary harm - Jesus would not do it. Neither should we.
Some of the harms result from surgeries done to make intersex children fit certain "types" for girls or boys, including sexual dysfunctions and, in some cases, infertility. Evidence also shows higher rates of harms that are related to being treated as "less than," from bullying, low self-esteem, and mental health issues to suicides. Our focus should be changing the conditions that create harms rather than changing the children to fit "types" we impose on them.
The HSR itself is internally inconsistent; for gender dysphoria is suggests the body is determinative, but for inter-sex children it promotes changing the body to fit with pre-conceived "types" that have their roots in Greek philosophy.
I agree with not using people; that is why I advocate for respecting the rights of children as persons created in the image of God rather than imposing certain "types" on them. It is less than helpful to lump all types of disabilities and illnesses together as "disordered;" fortunately we have changed the way we treat persons with many of the other realities named. I hope we will remain open to also learning more about these aspects of human development and relationships as well.
Some posts have caused me to reflect more on the role of our ministry leaders, as well as the substance of this report. That leads to questions about the Cof D directive. Ministry leaders are significant stakeholders in the future of the CRCNA and its ministries, as well as members of local churches. Their ministries include experiences that provide valuable insights that might not be accessible for other members; and, on the other hand, reports like this can have signficant impacts for their ministries. If they only contribute through their local churches, that leaves those of us not close to CRCNA offices without the benefit of their insights. In their churches they engage as members; if they engage there as ministry leaders rather than CRC members, that could be inappropriate influence in that context. I understand the concern about inappropriate influence, but that should not silence them or cancel out appropriate input as significant stakeholders in the outcomes.
Some synodical studies include relevant staff, such as the Abuse of Power report I co-chaired; some do not. This one had seminary professors but not ministry leaders. Those are different roles and perspectives.
There should be an established way for ministry leaders to have their own input as uniquely positioned stakeholders, in a way that members could also know their contributions and together we respect their roles as significant actors in our mutual goal of effective ministry in the current context. I would suggest the C of D review and consider revising its directive to provide an appropriate channel for their input. We will all be better for it.
Posted in: Prayer for Ukraine: Two Year Anniversary
I am glad this is being distributed to help inform prayers and conversation about the elements of building peace for Ukraine. I wonder why the story does not mention the Canadian Council of Churches, the primary leader of this initiative, of which the CRC in Canada is also a member. We owe credit and appreciation to the Council for the careful analysis, thoughtful articulation, and bringing together a very wide range of Christian leaders - not just evangelicals - to join together in prayers for peace.
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
I appreciate the need for a different forum to have a new conversation about women in the CRCNA. May I suggest the importance of considering larger Biblical teachings, such as justice for women within the CRCNA. Yes, we can disagree about what justice means, but it is a relevant Biblical principle, as much as specific instructions to specific churches about who could teach on not in a particular context.
May I add a few points from history and current context:
1. I noted the question about the 1970's and feminism, with an assumption that was the motivation. That is inaccurate and continues to be a reason to dismiss legitimate issues. I have been active since the beginning: the origins were and remain a desire to use all gifts of all women in ministry, not feminism. Opponents raised the bogeyman of "feminism" as a way to dismiss the concerns and claim women were just motivated by secular evils. This is important because this pattern continues today and gets in the way of productive dialogue.
2. The focus on using all gifts of all women is missional in origin, recognizing all kinds of diversification in the society to which we are to witness as Christians. It was also part of the work on addressing abuse in the CRC, after a 1960 report that showed rates of abuse within the church are similar to society at large. The lack of women in any leadership positions was named as an important part of what prevents abuse from being taken seriously. My experience in Safe Church work confirms the importance of having both women and men in leadership positions to deal effectively with abuse within church communities. Even many leaders who oppose women in office will acknowledge the value of having those different perspectives in the decision-making rooms of our churches. Why don't we give any weight to the Biblical teachings about judging by the fruits, when the evidence after 25 years seems abundantly clear that God is blessing the work of women in leadership in the CRC?
3. Justice for all women within the CRCNA is an important consideration for our current context. I hear from women who are silenced in their local churches, under the current policy. I weep about the lost potential, first of all, for women who are called by God and responsible to God first of all for the use of their gifts, who face barriers that we have put in place and refuse to even listen to them, let alone remove barriers to ministry. I weep for the church as I counsel women to take their gifts elsewhere and give priority to their calling before God to use them weill in service to God and their neighbors. I hear from women leaders who continue to face dismissal by men on the grounds that the CRCNA allows them to dismiss women - and there are no effective mechanisms to address these on-going injustices that women face within the CRCNA. I hear valid concerns about decreasing space for women within the CRCNA as the impacts of Synod 2022 and 2023 play out - and no one is naming or addressing this seriously. There is a growing body of research showing the harmful impacts for women and girls of complementarianism in practice. While the CRCNA never endorsed complementarianism for good reasons, it is now accepted within our circles and no one challenges it. I weep because I am complicit in the continuing injustices for women in the CRCNA. I worked for some mechanisms, such as a part-time position to focus on Women in Leadership, now broadened as a supposed improvement under Thrive, but in actuality it means even less focus on justice for women.
Yes, we need a new forum to have a dialogue - one that gives high priority to listening to women, as full moral agents called by God to use their gifts in God's service, and also takes seriously broader Biblical teachings, such as doing justice for women within our own circles, as well as very specific texts that address contexts in which women were considered property. I rejoice that God works outside the church to advance justice for women. When will the CRC join God's on-going work and remove barriers for women to use all their gifts in church and outside,as God calls them to do?
Kathy Vandergrift
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
I did not say all men are abusive. It is often that kind of generalizing dismissal that prevents constructive dialogue. The reality is that women who are abused are less likely to disclose what happened if they have to report to a man and/or know it will be discussed and decided by a group of men. We know from experience that secrecy and minimizing what is disclosed is a major barrier - and we know that follow-up to disclosures often stops at the level of councils who often work very closely with persons of concern and often make women feel guilty about raising any issues that might affect the reputation of the church or its leaders. I am speaking from real experience because that is what justice does. Justice, which is a Biblical calling named in far more verses than silencing women, starts with creating a context where women can be heard and then seriously listening to them, without pre-lectures about their duty to submit. Submission is mutual in the Bible - why does it get raised for women, but far less often and with far more emphasis on respect for the leadership for men?
Justice is a core Biblical teaching. It is also part of any hermeneutics that takes seriously the whole teaching of the Scriptures. it received too little attention in the earlier rounds of discussion. Time and experience have provided more evidence for both understanding specific texts and understanding the implications of core themes in the Bible that continue to be unfolded in God''s work in his world. I give thanks to God for using forces outside the church to advance justice for women in society. There is still a lot to be done, e.g. reducing intimate partner violence and domestic violence throughout both churches and society. I wish the CRC was leading in that - it would be a stronger public witness to the good news of the gospel than the continuing focus on excluding women from any leadership positions in the church.
The CRCNA rightly never did endorse complementarism. It is also an ideology. I find it curious that those who label feminism as evil because it is an ideology are willing to endorse another "ism" that reduces women to fit with an ideology. My point, however, was that the work for women in the CRC was not motivated by any ideology. It was motivated by the goal of using all gifts of all women in ministry and respect for the moral agency of women who are called by God and accountable to God first for the use of their God-given gifts. It is very Biblical to remove barriers to God's callings - we see that in the stories of the early church in Acts, for example. There is ample evidence about negative impacts for women and girls in many situations of rigid complementarism. Yes, I realize that may not be all. Again, my point is to avoid both ideologies and deal with the specific realities that affect the ability of women to live out all of their God-given callings within the CRCNA.
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
I wish the church had been a leader in justice for women and provided models for the larger society, instead of being a laggard. No, I do not think the timing is a coincidence. God often uses other parts of society to teach his church a lesson. That happened in Biblical times and it continues to happen throughout history. I'm thankful God continues God's work throughout creation and history, and is not limited to relying on the church. The question we face is joining God in God's work or continuing to resist and put up barriers. Jesus had some harsh words for church leaders who did that.
I did address the question of what the Bible says by drawing attention to the over-riding theme of justice throughout the Bible. I observed that hermeneutics also needs to consider the context of specific texts and the larger themes of Scripture, instead of using selected, isolated texts as prescriptive commands for all time when they were advice to particular churches in particular contexts where women were considered property I mentioned that the book of Acts includes examples of how the early church worked through somewhat similar challenges. All of these are relevant to an approach to interpreting Scripture, especially in the Reformed branch of Christianity. It is not a matter of pragmatic or the Bible. Jesus also modeled for us a much richer way to learning to live out prior teachings and the Good News of the gospel, including how he modelled full respect for women and children.
Kathy
Posted in: A Christian Discussion on Women in Office
Thank you, Bev, for naming the role of mistranslation in the exclusion of women from many roles in churches, and for recognizing the harms done to girls and women and the barriers created for the use of all gifts of all women for God's work in God's world. What puzzles me is that many Bible teachers and pastors now recognize those errors, and also now recognize early women theologians that had been ignored, but do not take any steps to remove barriers for women in ministry in their own church circles.
Posted in: The SALT Report Explained: Question #2
Historical accuracy is important to learn from it and not repeat harmful patterns. The Canadian Ministries Director was appointed to be the Executive Director for Canada by Synod already in 2014. It reported functionally to the Canada Corp and only administratively to the denominational Executive Director. In addition, between 2010 and 2015, Synod endorsed a number of measures to make binationality function as a "partnership." The SALT report ignores or misrepresents that history; that affected its analysis of the core issues, essentially reverting and then "fixing" something that had already been changed but was not being implemented under the Council of Delegates. The notion of partnership is not new; it was the core of the foundational report on binationality endorsed by Synod before the appointment of leaders in 2014. Having an Executive Director for Canada is not new. That has been repeatedly pointed out and continues to be misrepresented as part of the analysis of the issues and what would be a sustainable solution. That is why Canadians who care about governance find it difficult to see SALT as the "final solution." Changes made since the SALT report are an improvement on what the report recommended. Some of those happened because Canadians spoke up - and those who do are portrayed negatively. That should be a clue to the deeper issues and why some worry this is another "fix" that will erode again and repeat a harmful cycle. At this point in a process that was far more damaging to the church than it should have been, the question should be whether SALT is an adequate solution and the best we can do. If we really learn from history, we should be open to looking at other approaches that address more of the core issues that were not adequately analyzed in the SALT report.
Posted in: Talking About Human Sexuality With Love
Dan, it can be and has also been the case that individual delegates support more rigid and narrow positions than most of the members of the churches who send them express in other ways. I have even witnessed examples where there is a more open-minded or nuanced overture and a delegate actively pursues a rigid approach that undermines what seems the clear intent of that classis. I have not done a quantitative analysis, but my observation from many years is that this is at least as often the case as what you suspect. I agree representative and deliberative are not opposites.
Posted in: The SALT Report Explained: Question #2
Using the categories of "ecclesiastical" and "operational" as categories to divide responsibilities, as the SALT report does, is problematic. I would suggest it is also inconsistent with a Reformed understanding. Add the ambiguous definition of "ecclesiastical" and it is more problematic. Narrow, exclusionary, rigid boundaries for what is considered "ecclesiastical" runs counter to a Reformed world and life view. There are other options for effective, practical organizational structures. World Renew provides one example. Contextual ministry is an essential element of a Reformed understanding of our calling as the body of Christ on earth. Taking that seriously can lead to respectful and workable ways of organizing diverse expressions within a larger, unified whole. In my analysis, SALT falls short of providing a long-term sustainable approach for the bi-national context of the CRCNA.
Posted in: The SALT Report Explained: Question #2
It is also important that the Synod 2022 discussion of a future-oriented, sustainable approach to organizing for effective ministry go beyond "who pays and controls." The relationship between the "church" and its ministries is far more integrated and mutually beneficial that just appealing to individual diaconates for funding. Individual churches and members are not just funders of ministries. When the organization functions well, those ministries also support and help to shape the local church and they provide avenues for individual members to exercise their calling that go far beyond financial donations. I hope the CRC does not sacrifice that richness for rigid rules based on funding; funding should follow function, not drive it.
Posted in: Talking About Human Sexuality With Love
Thank you for reminding us about the importance of the new commandment, as Jesus also modeled for us. That means giving priority to the impacts of the HSR report for those most affected by it. We know, for example, that labelling intersex children "disordered" does harm - unnecessary harm - Jesus would not do it. Neither should we.
Posted in: Talking About Human Sexuality With Love
Some of the harms result from surgeries done to make intersex children fit certain "types" for girls or boys, including sexual dysfunctions and, in some cases, infertility. Evidence also shows higher rates of harms that are related to being treated as "less than," from bullying, low self-esteem, and mental health issues to suicides. Our focus should be changing the conditions that create harms rather than changing the children to fit "types" we impose on them.
The HSR itself is internally inconsistent; for gender dysphoria is suggests the body is determinative, but for inter-sex children it promotes changing the body to fit with pre-conceived "types" that have their roots in Greek philosophy.
I agree with not using people; that is why I advocate for respecting the rights of children as persons created in the image of God rather than imposing certain "types" on them. It is less than helpful to lump all types of disabilities and illnesses together as "disordered;" fortunately we have changed the way we treat persons with many of the other realities named. I hope we will remain open to also learning more about these aspects of human development and relationships as well.
Posted in: Talking About Human Sexuality With Love
Some posts have caused me to reflect more on the role of our ministry leaders, as well as the substance of this report. That leads to questions about the Cof D directive. Ministry leaders are significant stakeholders in the future of the CRCNA and its ministries, as well as members of local churches. Their ministries include experiences that provide valuable insights that might not be accessible for other members; and, on the other hand, reports like this can have signficant impacts for their ministries. If they only contribute through their local churches, that leaves those of us not close to CRCNA offices without the benefit of their insights. In their churches they engage as members; if they engage there as ministry leaders rather than CRC members, that could be inappropriate influence in that context. I understand the concern about inappropriate influence, but that should not silence them or cancel out appropriate input as significant stakeholders in the outcomes.
Some synodical studies include relevant staff, such as the Abuse of Power report I co-chaired; some do not. This one had seminary professors but not ministry leaders. Those are different roles and perspectives.
There should be an established way for ministry leaders to have their own input as uniquely positioned stakeholders, in a way that members could also know their contributions and together we respect their roles as significant actors in our mutual goal of effective ministry in the current context. I would suggest the C of D review and consider revising its directive to provide an appropriate channel for their input. We will all be better for it.