The form for Profession of Faith used in many churches makes reference to agreement with the confessions. Persons who have legitimate concerns about the decision to give one interpretation of unchastity confessional status will not be able to make profession of faith in good conscience. Profession of faith is an important entry to many elements of membership.
If the CRC showed greater respect for conscientious decision-making and the moral agency of its members - a very Reformed teaching - we would be stronger and have a more impactful public witness, as well as avoiding the waste of potential and harm caused by feeding internal conflicts.
While I appreciate naming this option for discussion, it seems to me that are at least three assumptions in this analysis that warrant more detailed attention:
1. The assumption of equivalency between the account of Paul and Barnabas and the current conflict within the CRC. The first was primarily a conflict about how to do missions in the context of expecting Christ's return quickly; that is very different in nature and context than the second one. It seems to me a closer parallel is the early church struggle over circumcision as a requirement. How that one was resolved provides important lessons for the current conflict - it leads in a different direction.
2. The assumption that both groups will be stronger elevates a few elements of church life and totally ignores other important elements of mission and witness. It also ignores the inconsistency of saying that this particular issue is essential for salvation and blessing those who leave because of a carefully discerned, conscientious decision that is a responsible exercise of their calling before God and their equal moral agency. One benefit of discussing a peaceful split is the tacit recognition that this particular matter is not central to salvation - once one recognizes that, there is not a very good reason to declare it has confessional status.
3. The assumption of minimum damage from a friendly split needs more careful analysis. In my view, Synod 2023 was poorly served by lack of accurate information about the impacts of the decisions it was making. We are still operating without analysis that could be done about the impacts of various scenarios. Well-informed decision-making is one of the basics of a Reformed approach to life; I have read many grossly inaccurate statements that are used to justify decisions that impact others without any consideration of the impacts for those others. That seems to me to violate a core teaching as important as any interpretation of unchastity. We should not continue acting on faulty assumptions.
Posted in: Peaceful Separation: Paul, Barnabas, and the CRCNA
The form for Profession of Faith used in many churches makes reference to agreement with the confessions. Persons who have legitimate concerns about the decision to give one interpretation of unchastity confessional status will not be able to make profession of faith in good conscience. Profession of faith is an important entry to many elements of membership.
If the CRC showed greater respect for conscientious decision-making and the moral agency of its members - a very Reformed teaching - we would be stronger and have a more impactful public witness, as well as avoiding the waste of potential and harm caused by feeding internal conflicts.
Posted in: Peaceful Separation: Paul, Barnabas, and the CRCNA
While I appreciate naming this option for discussion, it seems to me that are at least three assumptions in this analysis that warrant more detailed attention:
1. The assumption of equivalency between the account of Paul and Barnabas and the current conflict within the CRC. The first was primarily a conflict about how to do missions in the context of expecting Christ's return quickly; that is very different in nature and context than the second one. It seems to me a closer parallel is the early church struggle over circumcision as a requirement. How that one was resolved provides important lessons for the current conflict - it leads in a different direction.
2. The assumption that both groups will be stronger elevates a few elements of church life and totally ignores other important elements of mission and witness. It also ignores the inconsistency of saying that this particular issue is essential for salvation and blessing those who leave because of a carefully discerned, conscientious decision that is a responsible exercise of their calling before God and their equal moral agency. One benefit of discussing a peaceful split is the tacit recognition that this particular matter is not central to salvation - once one recognizes that, there is not a very good reason to declare it has confessional status.
3. The assumption of minimum damage from a friendly split needs more careful analysis. In my view, Synod 2023 was poorly served by lack of accurate information about the impacts of the decisions it was making. We are still operating without analysis that could be done about the impacts of various scenarios. Well-informed decision-making is one of the basics of a Reformed approach to life; I have read many grossly inaccurate statements that are used to justify decisions that impact others without any consideration of the impacts for those others. That seems to me to violate a core teaching as important as any interpretation of unchastity. We should not continue acting on faulty assumptions.
Kathy Vandergrift