This is the academic description of the psychological experience we (born CRC & LGBTQ) have been through. Thank you for this. I wish I’d seen this about 25 years ago.
This sort of thinking makes sense in a pragmatist sort of way. Really, it's just more of the same fad-chasing sort of thinking that Clay went through in your video (seeker sensitive, etc).
But imo this misses the key motivation behind the Reformed orthodox, which is: We do what the Bible says. The Regulative Principle of Worship. (The Regulative Principle of Church Order?)
It doesn't matter which of 3 (or 100) cultures we're in at the moment, we live in accordance to Biblical imperatives.
You're correct in identifying the hopes of reconciliation and holiness that are the end goals of church discipline. But if you aim to propose an alternative means of getting there, it must be thoroughly Biblical or its a non-starter.
Until then, I tend to think that living in obedience to God's Word, regardless of how well we think it might be received, is still the wisest bet.
I'm struggling to see how the above is contrary to what the Bible says. I think I was pretty clear about the major shortcomings of both sincerity culture and authenticity culture, and that I wasn't proposing that either be used as a template for the church accomplishing what the church is trying to accomplish. They are both deeply flawed paradigms.
My critique is that the right is reading the Bible while deeply embedded in the sincerity culture and doesn't realize it. Worse, the right is mistaking the template for what sincerity culture provides as "doing what the Bible says." That's a serious, serious mistake.
I want to be very clear that I am trying to be descriptive, not prescriptive. I'm looking at the current situation and trying to understand why it is the way it is, how it got that way, and why people act in response the way they do. The goal is explanatory. I'm trying to make sense of why things are the way they are, not propose what we should do. I don't have a clue what "alternative means of getting there" would even be.
Sorry to add to the push back here Kent, but I do feel this is one of your bigger misses on a few levels.
First, as Trevor noted, this analysis fails foremost because because it is unbiblical. Church discipline was not formed in 1857 with the CRCNA in a "sincerity" culture, but rather we see its principles laid out from the book of Genesis through Revelation. As such we recognize it as a means of grace, that God chooses to use, much like the preaching of the Word. Sure, there are those today that think lighting, fog machines, or whatever else is how to grab peoples emotions and move them, but that is just external manipulation. We rely upon the power of the Gospel to transform.
Second, just because church discipline has been largely ignored, does not mean that it no longer works. In my Classis, a larger/more urban church has faithfully pursued church discipline in 2 or 3 major cases over the last 5 or so years. 2 of these took the step of getting Classis concurrence, and one was publicly named and officially expelled from membership. However, by God's grace, all 3 repented, turned away from their individual sin issues, and have been restored to that body. Church discipline, in the 2020's works just fine when faithfully engaged.
Third, while this local church has the testimony of 100% restoration in these three cases, and restoration is always the desire, it by no means is the only positive or necessary out come. The wickedness and rebellion that Neland Ave. has been permitted to remain in, has now spread and infected 20 some other congregations. The lack of discipline was used, when an elder at Alger Park was questioned before their vote last year, as the hope that they too could become fully affirming without any consequences for taking such actions. Discipline is needed to rightly warn others, preserve the purity (and legitimacy) of the church, and trusting in the sovereign work of God's Spirit, to bring repentance and restoration, if our Lord so chooses!
I'm not suggesting anything biblical or unbiblical. I'm just making the observation that, on average, church discipline works better in sincerity cultures. If, in these cultures, people tend to find meaning insofar as how well they operate in the role they have, then anything that threatens their ability to do so is a powerful way to change behavior and belief and set someone on a journey toward repentance. All I'm trying to say (apparently not very well, judging by the comments) is that this makes less sense for someone who, instead, looks inward for identity. External threats just don't make as much of a difference.
I'll admit, too, I've been surprised by all the pushback in this thread. This is the same framework (from Charles Taylor and Robert Bellah) that underlies Trueman's The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, which in my view presents the strongest case for traditional views on human sexuality.
I would like to unpack a few thoughts that I've been contemplating through these last few posts.
Now, from my perspective, it would seem that all three of you from that video are approaching things from very much an "authenticity" position. (I know Kent not at all, Paul only from his videos, but I've got some personal familiarity with Clay going back in one way or another over a number of decades.) I am always somewhat bemused when I watch the "Gorillas in the Mist" approach to describing (apparently for the benefit of your like-minded fellows) the strange and familiar-but-alien ways of the Sincerity/conservative crowd. Hence, I suppose, the multiple block quotes from sociologists - who themselves have a particular... perspective. (See a number of articles from large mainstream publications that visit places like Orange City, IA for further examples.)
It's OK, I'll be Digit to your Dian Fossey.
I would argue that much about Authenticity culture has been profoundly negative. The elevation of Personal Freedom as the primary virtue to be pursued (generally applied mostly to sexual ethics on the Left and applied more wantonly to anything regulated on the Right) has been damaging all around. The lie of feminism pushed by many of those self-same authenticity folks have left women (as measured by those very same sociologists!) more unhappy than they've ever been. The myth of pursuit of personal fulfillment and the rise of the Me generation put the high octane push on divorce. And continues to lead us to send our children out into the world to "chase their dreams" while simultaneously cutting them loose from everything that tethers them to the things that made them - and we call it "being authentic." Authenticity, followed to it's logical conclusions, is an acid-bath for community. Digital community is NOT community. Surrounding yourself with like-minded people is NOT community. "MY tribe" is not community. I could go on and on (and have. I have a podcast that whinges on about this topic - among many others - at length. If anybody is that bored).
I also reject the proposition that it is both undesirable and impossible to restore any sort of Sincerity Culture. In fact, I would propose that Rod Dreher's book, "The Benedict Option" is championing exactly that - even if we weren't at the time using that language. Now, I don't always agree with Rod and can pick nits with a lot of what he says. And that book gets hammered a lot for what people read into it rather than what it says - as well as for not providing a road map for his proposed solutions. Largely, in both cases, due to an inability to articulate the premise as a need to build and live in communities of Sincerity Culture. But as we get further and further into what Aaron Renn's Negative World, retrenching as those immigrant cultures had to do WILL be a requirement and not an option.
Living IN real community requires individual sacrifice. The curtailing of individual freedoms. And sometimes giving up on our own preferences in favor of the preferences of the larger community. We've gotten REALLY bad at this, which is part of why our communities are struggling. And self-sorting more and more. Blame "Authenticity."
Now, contrary to Kent's experience, I have actually BEEN in a church when excommunication was brought to bear. I was very small, but it's the sort of thing that WILL make an impression. And I had many talks with Dad about it as I got older. Just past the age of 18, I was a member of a congregation that suffered the same issue and FAILED to discipline the principals. (If your curious, adultery among congregants. With a tendency to flaunt the new relationship IN the congregation). Failure to address the issue and bring church discipline to bear, over time, caused that congregation to fade and die. Community was lost.
Having said all that, let me sort of summarize what I have been getting from these last few posts. And correct me if I have misinterpreted your presentation or intent:
1. The affirming churches are not going to leave of their own accord. Largely because they "Authentically" believe themselves to be CRC. Or possibly even to be THE CRC. Their identity is so entwined with the institution that to leave would be to sacrifice their authentic selves.
2. The affirming churches should not be pushed out by Synod. And, in fact, it's somewhat questionable whether Synod has the authority to unilaterally "disaffiliate" churches. They should be permitted to stay within the denomination that they feel themselves so integrally a part of.
3. The affirming churches have indicated that they have no intention expressing agreement with the adoption of the HSR as presented and accepted by Synods 2022 and 2023, and in fact have made it a point to do the precise opposite if one looks at the statements of affirmation appearing on websites of specific congregations as evidence.
4. There is considerable difference of opinion on the purpose of gravamina. And difference in opinion about the motivations for asking to be granted one. Is it a "get out of jail free" card for people who wish to continue their current service, position, and still hold an "affirming" view? Or is it a small area of grace while that person decides whether than can come to uphold Synod's decision or not? And should there be a time limits on them?
5. The only mechanism present for church discipline should NOT be brought to bear on the affirming congregations, no matter how flagrantly they violate the adopted HSR. Because disciplinary measures meant for sincerity culture are not appropriate for authenticity culture.
IF (and it's a large IF, I grant) I have interpreted all that correctly, what that seems to add up to when _I_ do the math is:
Affirming churches should be allowed to remain within the denomination. Synod should apply no disciplinary measures. At most, such congregations might lose their delegates to Classis and Synod, and thus their votes on future measures. In the meantime, they should be permitted to continue as they have indicated they mean to, presenting their affirming position to their own communities as if it WAS in fact, that of the CRC itself. Perhaps some solution involving gravamina can be devised to provide a veneer of sanction to it all, but functionally nothing will change for these churches.
Which sounds to ME a lot like creating a "local option" by default, when Synod did not make that an option.
In what way would this not create even MORE havoc than the "local option" failure of consensus over WICO? Because the likely end result seems like a more acrimonious split, but still a split. I would anticipate that the conservative churches, if forced to stand by and permit without response, something that Synod has already adjudicated should not be permitted, will respond by either organizing to bring down the hammer even harder. Or will themselves split right. Again. I will give the affirming groups enough grace to not assume that this is, in fact, their target outcome - to aggravate the conservatives out of the denomination in order to shift the balance back to the left. But I don't see any part of this going well.
Yes, my response here is similar to Trevor. Church discipline is simply in the Bible, and, according to our confessions, it is the Third Mark of the Church. It is the biblical way of addressing perpetual sin and apostasy regardless of what "culture" is dominant in the moment.
This reads a bit like that stereotypical college student who comes back home for Thanksgiving and declares to his family: “I read a book and now I know everything you’re doing is wrong.” Maybe sit awhile before confidently asserting that the book you just read and the concepts you learned about definitively show the CRC disciplinary system is obsolete.
Steve, my threshold is 80%. Once I'm 80% sure of an idea, I'm going to publish it. I try to write five posts per week, so one of them will be wrong. If I'm not wrong once per week, I'm not thinking hard enough. For the record, I don't think I'm wrong about this. :)
Keep thinking. I’d counter that church discipline helps form members to resist the corrosive cultural dynamics you’ve identified that turn institutions into stages for individual expression (see Yuval Levin). To abandon church discipline because “the whole world’s a stage” is not only unbiblical but an abdication.
I think this tracks really well in churches that are rooted in an agricultural community, of which my church is one. The shift you're describing here tracks almost exactly on to the time our community shifted from many struggling farmers to many middle-class families that were more economically stable. I wonder if some of the push back you're getting here comes because not every church has this same historical development and so the description doesn't work as well?
I was thinking the same thing. I come from a rural Canadian CRC church that had a similar trajectory.
I no longer live there but visit regularly and I've noticed the growing influence of evangelicalism and less traditional Reformed. Two different approaches to being conservative.
I think authenticity and sincerity are good ways of describing it. But I would argue that the CRC churches across the spectrum are more steeped in authenticity now. And the old tools don't work as well.
I agree with Trevor's comments. I find it interesting that the entire article here deals with, and only with, what our (church) culture holds. There is talk of self-fulfillment. Where is the Bible in all this? Are we sitting on the throne of our lives, or is God?
If we notice that water changes from a solid to a liquid at a certain temperature, and try to explain it with “because God did it,” then we haven’t really learned anything about water, solids, liquids, or temperature (or God!)—in short, we’ve learned nothing. That’s because the “because God did it” explanation isn’t the kind of explanation that increases knowledge. This is the difference between explaining something and explaining it away.
Now substitute the state-change of water for questions like "why did church discipline once work but doesn't now?" or "how does the modern infatuation with being true to oneself affect our churches?" or "what are the most effective ways of increasing confessional fidelity that don't involve discipline?" You could look to the Bible for answers and come up with things like "humans are sinful" and "our reasoning is flawed by the fall" and so on. All of these biblical explanations are true. But they're not helpful. These kinds of explanations don't really explain our current moment as much as they simply just explain it away.
This is a very interesting discussion, Kent. Yes, you make a good point here about why something did work in the past and perhaps doesn't work today. Although, I'd like to suggest that rather than these thoughts attempting to explain it away, it seems like it might be helpful to consider how, given where we are now, how we can best follow God's will as defined in His Word. For us to leave things where the article currently stands, please allow me to suggest that it would be to leave things "where we as people are today," rather than striving to keep God on the throne of our lives and shape and mold our lives according to the Special Revelation He has provided for us. Does that make sense? Thanks.
With no offense intended, that was my suspicion given what you have written here. Elders (generally) do not speak and think about the church in the terms you have written here. Your whole train of thought and framework for analysis is odd and inappropriate. Discipline is not for making people conform to some notion of a role. That's a foreign thought. Despite your assertion, discipline is effective and discipline does still occur, cultural/sociological changes notwithstanding. To be sure, discipline is not practiced as often and as effectively as it should be, but that does not militate against discipline as the Biblically mandated faithful pattern. Your analysis would benefit from less psychological/sociological flattening and more spiritual/theological acknowledgement.
I would also note that you may want to consider that your musings are sometimes more than innocent musings, and sometimes delve into bearing false witness. Exhibit A for me would be your musings about Classis Minnkota, which are laughably off and factually incorrect. And when you muse about Minnkota you are not musing about an idea or something inanimate, but real churches and real people - people that you don't know and whose hearts and minds you are not qualified to judge.
Worth pondering, it seems to me. Thanks for considering.
Eric, just quickly noting that I’ve read this and will think through it, but I’m also heading offline for travel so won’t be able to give this a thoughtful response for a bit.
Eric, I’m still thinking through this, and still mostly offline this week (in the UK for work, jetlagged, etc.), but didn’t want to put you off.
On this: “Discipline is not for making people conform to some notion of a role.”
This isn’t what I intended to communicate, and I don’t *think* I communicated this, but it was almost 11pm when I sent the email and I had brain fog when writing the last few paragraphs. My intent was to communicate that the extent someone performs in a role they’re in is a hallmark of sincerity culture, and church discipline not only comes from but is also extremely effective in such a culture. I’m not saying there’s anything inherently wrong with church discipline, I’m just trying to think through why it’s not effective (though people have provided anecdotes for situation why it might still be effective). My guess is that it’s because many people no longer live in a sincerity culture. They value authenticity, and church discipline really doesn’t factor into this in the way it did for people who valued sincerity to roles. Now, there are plenty of anecdotes that show it can be effective in certain situations (some in this comment thread). I’m just saying that as a rule, on average, we’re trying to apply sincerity culture methods to people who value authenticity. It doesn’t accomplish what it tries to do as well.
On this: “your musings about Classis Minnkota, which are laughably off and factually incorrect. And when you muse about Minnkota you are not musing about an idea or something inanimate, but real churches and real people - people that you don't know and whose hearts and minds you are not qualified to judge.”
And this: “What I am asking Kent to reconsider is his penchant for categorizing people (against their wishes) and assigning various motivations to them (which they have not expressed, and he cannot know).”
I’m really struggling with this one, for a few reasons.
First, the work is happening in very public ways in the form of overtures, livestreams, classis minutes, podcast interviews (where motives are expressed), and so on. I’m having a hard time with the accusation that I’m inferring motives when so many people have been so public about their motives. Most of the people in the Abide project, most of the people who signed the Committee 8 majority report, etc. have been outspoken about their experience. (If there’s something specific, I’m willing to reconsider though.)
Second, you’re right that I don’t have personal experience in Minnkota, but I have spent most of my life in rural, conservative places in the denomination (places a lot like Minnkota). These are not foreign viewpoints to me.
Third, I don’t think I have a very high view of the relationships between expressed motives and human behavior, both at an individual level, and especially in situations where people are trying to coordinate together. So this is absolutely correct: “Elders (generally) do not speak and think about the church in the terms you have written here. ” I’m in a fish-in-water situation, I suppose. I’m not quite sure why it matters if an analysis is odd and inappropriate or what makes it odd or inappropriate. Even if it ends up being incorrect, if it has a degree of explanatory power. It seems like less odd and more appropriate analysis (I admit, I don’t know what those are) aren’t working?
You can put this in the “better late than never” category or simply the circular file, as you see most appropriate, but suffice it so say I feel as though I owe you the response that I said would be forthcoming. Thanks for your (assumed) patience. :)
As to discipline and the notion of role, I find it pretty much inescapable that you have described discipline in those terms. You speak repeatedly of playing roles in the sincerity culture while discussing discipline and near the end you state the following: “Remember, in sincerity culture, ‘if identity can be found only in successful role fulfillment and community relationships, then a denial of role recognition is perceived as catastrophic.’ The possibility of discipline avoids this “catastrophic” outcome—and in sincerity culture, it can be perceived as nothing other than loving.” Note your formula: discipline avoids the catastrophic outcome, which is immediately prior described as “a denial of role recognition”. This is fairly specific and is supported in more general terms in your preceding analysis. I’m not sure how else you expect the reader to interpret that.
Moving to your threefold response to my concerns about your characterization of Minnkota, I’ll try to respond to each in order.
1. I’ll note that in response to my criticism of how you’ve spoken about Minnkota you reference Abide. The two are not the same, and perhaps part of your mistake is in conflating the two. I would agree that Minnkota’s work has been very public, but the only public work you’ve produced about Minnkota you have characterized inaccurately. There are a good number of Minnkota overtures that don’t fall in the categories that you mention, but somehow you don’t acknowledge the. More importantly, though you don’t reference the stated motivations of Minnkota, easily found in each of the grounds for the overtures. Instead, you posit Minnkota as signaling certain things and being motivated by in group/out group thinking and cultural tides. In doing so you have ignored our stated reasons and inserted you own supposed reasons instead.
An example of where you have thinks exactly backwards. You say about Minnkota: “they represent what they think is a minority position in the denomination”. Nonsense. First, you do well not to tell others what you think we think as if it is factual unless you can find us saying that thing. In fact, the exact opposite of what you assert is true. For many years Minnkota has felt firmly that our beliefs actually align with a substantial majority of the rank and file of the CRC and that the more progressive feel of the institutional CRC is skewed by those who have sought out and fill positions of influence in the CRC. And it seems as though that has borne itself out pretty clearly for three synods in a row. The fact that Minnkota was more visible and assertive in expressing support for historic CRC doctrine and practice and expressing concern for increasingly partisan play-acting by CRC staff does not place us outside the mainstream – it just means we took a leadership role.
Statements such as this are simply slanderous and wrong: “My (cynical, I admit) belief is that many people in Minnkota and many people in GRE arrive at their convictions not because of any kind of proper hermeneutic or even their commitment to the confessions but rather as a downstream result of the social imaginary they’re unknowingly part of.” If I was to say the following publicly you may feel equally unimpressed: “My (cynical, I admit) belief is that Kent is not really trying to honestly and helpfully assess what is happening in the CRC but is instead unknowingly motivated by the modern phenomenon of popularity-seeking through clickbait analysis – Kent seeks readers and influence, not fairness and honesty.” That’s not terribly flattering but is akin to what you have done to others.
2. Asserting your “rural, conservative” bona fides does not explain or excuse your penchant to assign motivation to Minnkota that we have not expressed and would not agree to. The fact that I’ve known guys named Kent or people situated like you does not give me license to make things up about you.
3. I think your analysis was odd and inappropriate in particular to the extent that you totally eschewed the spiritual and instead sought to shed light through a cultural/sociological/psychological lens. In the end your analysis falls terribly short for exactly that reason. I don’t think you can accurately say that “less odd and more appropriate analysis… [isn’t] working”. Spiritual analysis of what is happening has worked and is working, and in fact played out at the recent synod. Not perfectly so, to be sure, but it was the spiritual analysis of what was at play that helped the delegates make difficult and necessary decisions. And the decisions about discipline were not an attempt to keep people in a role, but to faithfully follow the apostolic example and instructions for life in the church. I think your analysis pales in the face of the spiritual analysis done by the committees and body of synod, to say nothing of all the churches/classes that sent overtures around this topic. That is not trying to be unkind to you, just assessing your analytical rubric as missing the mark and ultimately unhelpful.
That if likely quite enough from me on that. Here’s an offer for you: If you ever have a question about Minnkota, as an active Minnkota guy I’d be more than happy to shed some light. If further clarification of my concern here is necessary, I will strive to oblige. Thanks for engaging with me.
“people that you don't know and whose hearts and minds you are not qualified to judge.”
And exhibit B is maybe the flip side? Musings (Lectures? Motions? Pointed confessional interpretation elevations) about real churches and real people at places like Neland Ave. and beyond?
Hi Andrew. I am not speaking above about judging actions but musing about motivations (and the like). What Synod has done regarding Neland Ave. is rightly judge their actions as a violation of our covenant together, and further as a violation of God's Word. To be sure, Synod recognized the real people involved with Neland Ave. As a delegate to Synod 2022 I was privileged to share a lunch table multiple times with delegate Larry Louters, president of the Neland Ave Church Council. I enjoyed my interactions with Larry and recognize and respect him as a real person. That does not, however, mean that we don't have significant differences. It is fine to acknowledge differences. What I am asking Kent to reconsider is his penchant for categorizing people (against their wishes) and assigning various motivations to them (which they have not expressed, and he cannot know).
In this light your proposed Exhibit B is not an exhibit of what I was pushing back against. I understand that you may not like the conclusions of synod over the last two years, but synod is not only allowed to make these conclusions but is required to. Thanks for engaging.
This is the academic description of the psychological experience we (born CRC & LGBTQ) have been through. Thank you for this. I wish I’d seen this about 25 years ago.
This sort of thinking makes sense in a pragmatist sort of way. Really, it's just more of the same fad-chasing sort of thinking that Clay went through in your video (seeker sensitive, etc).
But imo this misses the key motivation behind the Reformed orthodox, which is: We do what the Bible says. The Regulative Principle of Worship. (The Regulative Principle of Church Order?)
It doesn't matter which of 3 (or 100) cultures we're in at the moment, we live in accordance to Biblical imperatives.
You're correct in identifying the hopes of reconciliation and holiness that are the end goals of church discipline. But if you aim to propose an alternative means of getting there, it must be thoroughly Biblical or its a non-starter.
Until then, I tend to think that living in obedience to God's Word, regardless of how well we think it might be received, is still the wisest bet.
I'm struggling to see how the above is contrary to what the Bible says. I think I was pretty clear about the major shortcomings of both sincerity culture and authenticity culture, and that I wasn't proposing that either be used as a template for the church accomplishing what the church is trying to accomplish. They are both deeply flawed paradigms.
My critique is that the right is reading the Bible while deeply embedded in the sincerity culture and doesn't realize it. Worse, the right is mistaking the template for what sincerity culture provides as "doing what the Bible says." That's a serious, serious mistake.
I want to be very clear that I am trying to be descriptive, not prescriptive. I'm looking at the current situation and trying to understand why it is the way it is, how it got that way, and why people act in response the way they do. The goal is explanatory. I'm trying to make sense of why things are the way they are, not propose what we should do. I don't have a clue what "alternative means of getting there" would even be.
Sorry to add to the push back here Kent, but I do feel this is one of your bigger misses on a few levels.
First, as Trevor noted, this analysis fails foremost because because it is unbiblical. Church discipline was not formed in 1857 with the CRCNA in a "sincerity" culture, but rather we see its principles laid out from the book of Genesis through Revelation. As such we recognize it as a means of grace, that God chooses to use, much like the preaching of the Word. Sure, there are those today that think lighting, fog machines, or whatever else is how to grab peoples emotions and move them, but that is just external manipulation. We rely upon the power of the Gospel to transform.
Second, just because church discipline has been largely ignored, does not mean that it no longer works. In my Classis, a larger/more urban church has faithfully pursued church discipline in 2 or 3 major cases over the last 5 or so years. 2 of these took the step of getting Classis concurrence, and one was publicly named and officially expelled from membership. However, by God's grace, all 3 repented, turned away from their individual sin issues, and have been restored to that body. Church discipline, in the 2020's works just fine when faithfully engaged.
Third, while this local church has the testimony of 100% restoration in these three cases, and restoration is always the desire, it by no means is the only positive or necessary out come. The wickedness and rebellion that Neland Ave. has been permitted to remain in, has now spread and infected 20 some other congregations. The lack of discipline was used, when an elder at Alger Park was questioned before their vote last year, as the hope that they too could become fully affirming without any consequences for taking such actions. Discipline is needed to rightly warn others, preserve the purity (and legitimacy) of the church, and trusting in the sovereign work of God's Spirit, to bring repentance and restoration, if our Lord so chooses!
I'm not suggesting anything biblical or unbiblical. I'm just making the observation that, on average, church discipline works better in sincerity cultures. If, in these cultures, people tend to find meaning insofar as how well they operate in the role they have, then anything that threatens their ability to do so is a powerful way to change behavior and belief and set someone on a journey toward repentance. All I'm trying to say (apparently not very well, judging by the comments) is that this makes less sense for someone who, instead, looks inward for identity. External threats just don't make as much of a difference.
I'll admit, too, I've been surprised by all the pushback in this thread. This is the same framework (from Charles Taylor and Robert Bellah) that underlies Trueman's The Rise and Triumph of the Modern Self, which in my view presents the strongest case for traditional views on human sexuality.
I would like to unpack a few thoughts that I've been contemplating through these last few posts.
Now, from my perspective, it would seem that all three of you from that video are approaching things from very much an "authenticity" position. (I know Kent not at all, Paul only from his videos, but I've got some personal familiarity with Clay going back in one way or another over a number of decades.) I am always somewhat bemused when I watch the "Gorillas in the Mist" approach to describing (apparently for the benefit of your like-minded fellows) the strange and familiar-but-alien ways of the Sincerity/conservative crowd. Hence, I suppose, the multiple block quotes from sociologists - who themselves have a particular... perspective. (See a number of articles from large mainstream publications that visit places like Orange City, IA for further examples.)
It's OK, I'll be Digit to your Dian Fossey.
I would argue that much about Authenticity culture has been profoundly negative. The elevation of Personal Freedom as the primary virtue to be pursued (generally applied mostly to sexual ethics on the Left and applied more wantonly to anything regulated on the Right) has been damaging all around. The lie of feminism pushed by many of those self-same authenticity folks have left women (as measured by those very same sociologists!) more unhappy than they've ever been. The myth of pursuit of personal fulfillment and the rise of the Me generation put the high octane push on divorce. And continues to lead us to send our children out into the world to "chase their dreams" while simultaneously cutting them loose from everything that tethers them to the things that made them - and we call it "being authentic." Authenticity, followed to it's logical conclusions, is an acid-bath for community. Digital community is NOT community. Surrounding yourself with like-minded people is NOT community. "MY tribe" is not community. I could go on and on (and have. I have a podcast that whinges on about this topic - among many others - at length. If anybody is that bored).
I also reject the proposition that it is both undesirable and impossible to restore any sort of Sincerity Culture. In fact, I would propose that Rod Dreher's book, "The Benedict Option" is championing exactly that - even if we weren't at the time using that language. Now, I don't always agree with Rod and can pick nits with a lot of what he says. And that book gets hammered a lot for what people read into it rather than what it says - as well as for not providing a road map for his proposed solutions. Largely, in both cases, due to an inability to articulate the premise as a need to build and live in communities of Sincerity Culture. But as we get further and further into what Aaron Renn's Negative World, retrenching as those immigrant cultures had to do WILL be a requirement and not an option.
Living IN real community requires individual sacrifice. The curtailing of individual freedoms. And sometimes giving up on our own preferences in favor of the preferences of the larger community. We've gotten REALLY bad at this, which is part of why our communities are struggling. And self-sorting more and more. Blame "Authenticity."
Now, contrary to Kent's experience, I have actually BEEN in a church when excommunication was brought to bear. I was very small, but it's the sort of thing that WILL make an impression. And I had many talks with Dad about it as I got older. Just past the age of 18, I was a member of a congregation that suffered the same issue and FAILED to discipline the principals. (If your curious, adultery among congregants. With a tendency to flaunt the new relationship IN the congregation). Failure to address the issue and bring church discipline to bear, over time, caused that congregation to fade and die. Community was lost.
Having said all that, let me sort of summarize what I have been getting from these last few posts. And correct me if I have misinterpreted your presentation or intent:
1. The affirming churches are not going to leave of their own accord. Largely because they "Authentically" believe themselves to be CRC. Or possibly even to be THE CRC. Their identity is so entwined with the institution that to leave would be to sacrifice their authentic selves.
2. The affirming churches should not be pushed out by Synod. And, in fact, it's somewhat questionable whether Synod has the authority to unilaterally "disaffiliate" churches. They should be permitted to stay within the denomination that they feel themselves so integrally a part of.
3. The affirming churches have indicated that they have no intention expressing agreement with the adoption of the HSR as presented and accepted by Synods 2022 and 2023, and in fact have made it a point to do the precise opposite if one looks at the statements of affirmation appearing on websites of specific congregations as evidence.
4. There is considerable difference of opinion on the purpose of gravamina. And difference in opinion about the motivations for asking to be granted one. Is it a "get out of jail free" card for people who wish to continue their current service, position, and still hold an "affirming" view? Or is it a small area of grace while that person decides whether than can come to uphold Synod's decision or not? And should there be a time limits on them?
5. The only mechanism present for church discipline should NOT be brought to bear on the affirming congregations, no matter how flagrantly they violate the adopted HSR. Because disciplinary measures meant for sincerity culture are not appropriate for authenticity culture.
IF (and it's a large IF, I grant) I have interpreted all that correctly, what that seems to add up to when _I_ do the math is:
Affirming churches should be allowed to remain within the denomination. Synod should apply no disciplinary measures. At most, such congregations might lose their delegates to Classis and Synod, and thus their votes on future measures. In the meantime, they should be permitted to continue as they have indicated they mean to, presenting their affirming position to their own communities as if it WAS in fact, that of the CRC itself. Perhaps some solution involving gravamina can be devised to provide a veneer of sanction to it all, but functionally nothing will change for these churches.
Which sounds to ME a lot like creating a "local option" by default, when Synod did not make that an option.
In what way would this not create even MORE havoc than the "local option" failure of consensus over WICO? Because the likely end result seems like a more acrimonious split, but still a split. I would anticipate that the conservative churches, if forced to stand by and permit without response, something that Synod has already adjudicated should not be permitted, will respond by either organizing to bring down the hammer even harder. Or will themselves split right. Again. I will give the affirming groups enough grace to not assume that this is, in fact, their target outcome - to aggravate the conservatives out of the denomination in order to shift the balance back to the left. But I don't see any part of this going well.
Yes, my response here is similar to Trevor. Church discipline is simply in the Bible, and, according to our confessions, it is the Third Mark of the Church. It is the biblical way of addressing perpetual sin and apostasy regardless of what "culture" is dominant in the moment.
Agree. I'm just saying it's not the best way in this situation.
This reads a bit like that stereotypical college student who comes back home for Thanksgiving and declares to his family: “I read a book and now I know everything you’re doing is wrong.” Maybe sit awhile before confidently asserting that the book you just read and the concepts you learned about definitively show the CRC disciplinary system is obsolete.
Steve, my threshold is 80%. Once I'm 80% sure of an idea, I'm going to publish it. I try to write five posts per week, so one of them will be wrong. If I'm not wrong once per week, I'm not thinking hard enough. For the record, I don't think I'm wrong about this. :)
Keep thinking. I’d counter that church discipline helps form members to resist the corrosive cultural dynamics you’ve identified that turn institutions into stages for individual expression (see Yuval Levin). To abandon church discipline because “the whole world’s a stage” is not only unbiblical but an abdication.
"church discipline helps form members to resist the corrosive cultural dynamics"
Yes, but so do lots of other things, arguably better. This feels a bit like a when-you-have-a-hammer-everything-looks-like-a-nail situation.
Never suggested discipline is the only or even primary means of formation. But it is an essential part of a biblical program of discipleship.
"Arguably better"
So make the (Biblical!) argument. What works better?
I think this tracks really well in churches that are rooted in an agricultural community, of which my church is one. The shift you're describing here tracks almost exactly on to the time our community shifted from many struggling farmers to many middle-class families that were more economically stable. I wonder if some of the push back you're getting here comes because not every church has this same historical development and so the description doesn't work as well?
I was thinking the same thing. I come from a rural Canadian CRC church that had a similar trajectory.
I no longer live there but visit regularly and I've noticed the growing influence of evangelicalism and less traditional Reformed. Two different approaches to being conservative.
I think authenticity and sincerity are good ways of describing it. But I would argue that the CRC churches across the spectrum are more steeped in authenticity now. And the old tools don't work as well.
I agree with Trevor's comments. I find it interesting that the entire article here deals with, and only with, what our (church) culture holds. There is talk of self-fulfillment. Where is the Bible in all this? Are we sitting on the throne of our lives, or is God?
If we notice that water changes from a solid to a liquid at a certain temperature, and try to explain it with “because God did it,” then we haven’t really learned anything about water, solids, liquids, or temperature (or God!)—in short, we’ve learned nothing. That’s because the “because God did it” explanation isn’t the kind of explanation that increases knowledge. This is the difference between explaining something and explaining it away.
Now substitute the state-change of water for questions like "why did church discipline once work but doesn't now?" or "how does the modern infatuation with being true to oneself affect our churches?" or "what are the most effective ways of increasing confessional fidelity that don't involve discipline?" You could look to the Bible for answers and come up with things like "humans are sinful" and "our reasoning is flawed by the fall" and so on. All of these biblical explanations are true. But they're not helpful. These kinds of explanations don't really explain our current moment as much as they simply just explain it away.
This is a very interesting discussion, Kent. Yes, you make a good point here about why something did work in the past and perhaps doesn't work today. Although, I'd like to suggest that rather than these thoughts attempting to explain it away, it seems like it might be helpful to consider how, given where we are now, how we can best follow God's will as defined in His Word. For us to leave things where the article currently stands, please allow me to suggest that it would be to leave things "where we as people are today," rather than striving to keep God on the throne of our lives and shape and mold our lives according to the Special Revelation He has provided for us. Does that make sense? Thanks.
Kent, have you ever been an elder?
No. Never held office.
With no offense intended, that was my suspicion given what you have written here. Elders (generally) do not speak and think about the church in the terms you have written here. Your whole train of thought and framework for analysis is odd and inappropriate. Discipline is not for making people conform to some notion of a role. That's a foreign thought. Despite your assertion, discipline is effective and discipline does still occur, cultural/sociological changes notwithstanding. To be sure, discipline is not practiced as often and as effectively as it should be, but that does not militate against discipline as the Biblically mandated faithful pattern. Your analysis would benefit from less psychological/sociological flattening and more spiritual/theological acknowledgement.
I would also note that you may want to consider that your musings are sometimes more than innocent musings, and sometimes delve into bearing false witness. Exhibit A for me would be your musings about Classis Minnkota, which are laughably off and factually incorrect. And when you muse about Minnkota you are not musing about an idea or something inanimate, but real churches and real people - people that you don't know and whose hearts and minds you are not qualified to judge.
Worth pondering, it seems to me. Thanks for considering.
Eric, just quickly noting that I’ve read this and will think through it, but I’m also heading offline for travel so won’t be able to give this a thoughtful response for a bit.
Thanks for engaging. Respond as you have opportunity and find helpful.
Eric, I’m still thinking through this, and still mostly offline this week (in the UK for work, jetlagged, etc.), but didn’t want to put you off.
On this: “Discipline is not for making people conform to some notion of a role.”
This isn’t what I intended to communicate, and I don’t *think* I communicated this, but it was almost 11pm when I sent the email and I had brain fog when writing the last few paragraphs. My intent was to communicate that the extent someone performs in a role they’re in is a hallmark of sincerity culture, and church discipline not only comes from but is also extremely effective in such a culture. I’m not saying there’s anything inherently wrong with church discipline, I’m just trying to think through why it’s not effective (though people have provided anecdotes for situation why it might still be effective). My guess is that it’s because many people no longer live in a sincerity culture. They value authenticity, and church discipline really doesn’t factor into this in the way it did for people who valued sincerity to roles. Now, there are plenty of anecdotes that show it can be effective in certain situations (some in this comment thread). I’m just saying that as a rule, on average, we’re trying to apply sincerity culture methods to people who value authenticity. It doesn’t accomplish what it tries to do as well.
On this: “your musings about Classis Minnkota, which are laughably off and factually incorrect. And when you muse about Minnkota you are not musing about an idea or something inanimate, but real churches and real people - people that you don't know and whose hearts and minds you are not qualified to judge.”
And this: “What I am asking Kent to reconsider is his penchant for categorizing people (against their wishes) and assigning various motivations to them (which they have not expressed, and he cannot know).”
I’m really struggling with this one, for a few reasons.
First, the work is happening in very public ways in the form of overtures, livestreams, classis minutes, podcast interviews (where motives are expressed), and so on. I’m having a hard time with the accusation that I’m inferring motives when so many people have been so public about their motives. Most of the people in the Abide project, most of the people who signed the Committee 8 majority report, etc. have been outspoken about their experience. (If there’s something specific, I’m willing to reconsider though.)
Second, you’re right that I don’t have personal experience in Minnkota, but I have spent most of my life in rural, conservative places in the denomination (places a lot like Minnkota). These are not foreign viewpoints to me.
Third, I don’t think I have a very high view of the relationships between expressed motives and human behavior, both at an individual level, and especially in situations where people are trying to coordinate together. So this is absolutely correct: “Elders (generally) do not speak and think about the church in the terms you have written here. ” I’m in a fish-in-water situation, I suppose. I’m not quite sure why it matters if an analysis is odd and inappropriate or what makes it odd or inappropriate. Even if it ends up being incorrect, if it has a degree of explanatory power. It seems like less odd and more appropriate analysis (I admit, I don’t know what those are) aren’t working?
Hi Kent,
You can put this in the “better late than never” category or simply the circular file, as you see most appropriate, but suffice it so say I feel as though I owe you the response that I said would be forthcoming. Thanks for your (assumed) patience. :)
As to discipline and the notion of role, I find it pretty much inescapable that you have described discipline in those terms. You speak repeatedly of playing roles in the sincerity culture while discussing discipline and near the end you state the following: “Remember, in sincerity culture, ‘if identity can be found only in successful role fulfillment and community relationships, then a denial of role recognition is perceived as catastrophic.’ The possibility of discipline avoids this “catastrophic” outcome—and in sincerity culture, it can be perceived as nothing other than loving.” Note your formula: discipline avoids the catastrophic outcome, which is immediately prior described as “a denial of role recognition”. This is fairly specific and is supported in more general terms in your preceding analysis. I’m not sure how else you expect the reader to interpret that.
Moving to your threefold response to my concerns about your characterization of Minnkota, I’ll try to respond to each in order.
1. I’ll note that in response to my criticism of how you’ve spoken about Minnkota you reference Abide. The two are not the same, and perhaps part of your mistake is in conflating the two. I would agree that Minnkota’s work has been very public, but the only public work you’ve produced about Minnkota you have characterized inaccurately. There are a good number of Minnkota overtures that don’t fall in the categories that you mention, but somehow you don’t acknowledge the. More importantly, though you don’t reference the stated motivations of Minnkota, easily found in each of the grounds for the overtures. Instead, you posit Minnkota as signaling certain things and being motivated by in group/out group thinking and cultural tides. In doing so you have ignored our stated reasons and inserted you own supposed reasons instead.
An example of where you have thinks exactly backwards. You say about Minnkota: “they represent what they think is a minority position in the denomination”. Nonsense. First, you do well not to tell others what you think we think as if it is factual unless you can find us saying that thing. In fact, the exact opposite of what you assert is true. For many years Minnkota has felt firmly that our beliefs actually align with a substantial majority of the rank and file of the CRC and that the more progressive feel of the institutional CRC is skewed by those who have sought out and fill positions of influence in the CRC. And it seems as though that has borne itself out pretty clearly for three synods in a row. The fact that Minnkota was more visible and assertive in expressing support for historic CRC doctrine and practice and expressing concern for increasingly partisan play-acting by CRC staff does not place us outside the mainstream – it just means we took a leadership role.
Statements such as this are simply slanderous and wrong: “My (cynical, I admit) belief is that many people in Minnkota and many people in GRE arrive at their convictions not because of any kind of proper hermeneutic or even their commitment to the confessions but rather as a downstream result of the social imaginary they’re unknowingly part of.” If I was to say the following publicly you may feel equally unimpressed: “My (cynical, I admit) belief is that Kent is not really trying to honestly and helpfully assess what is happening in the CRC but is instead unknowingly motivated by the modern phenomenon of popularity-seeking through clickbait analysis – Kent seeks readers and influence, not fairness and honesty.” That’s not terribly flattering but is akin to what you have done to others.
2. Asserting your “rural, conservative” bona fides does not explain or excuse your penchant to assign motivation to Minnkota that we have not expressed and would not agree to. The fact that I’ve known guys named Kent or people situated like you does not give me license to make things up about you.
3. I think your analysis was odd and inappropriate in particular to the extent that you totally eschewed the spiritual and instead sought to shed light through a cultural/sociological/psychological lens. In the end your analysis falls terribly short for exactly that reason. I don’t think you can accurately say that “less odd and more appropriate analysis… [isn’t] working”. Spiritual analysis of what is happening has worked and is working, and in fact played out at the recent synod. Not perfectly so, to be sure, but it was the spiritual analysis of what was at play that helped the delegates make difficult and necessary decisions. And the decisions about discipline were not an attempt to keep people in a role, but to faithfully follow the apostolic example and instructions for life in the church. I think your analysis pales in the face of the spiritual analysis done by the committees and body of synod, to say nothing of all the churches/classes that sent overtures around this topic. That is not trying to be unkind to you, just assessing your analytical rubric as missing the mark and ultimately unhelpful.
That if likely quite enough from me on that. Here’s an offer for you: If you ever have a question about Minnkota, as an active Minnkota guy I’d be more than happy to shed some light. If further clarification of my concern here is necessary, I will strive to oblige. Thanks for engaging with me.
Hello Kent, I will return your pattern by acknowledging your comment and noting that I will ponder and reply as I am able. Thanks.
“people that you don't know and whose hearts and minds you are not qualified to judge.”
And exhibit B is maybe the flip side? Musings (Lectures? Motions? Pointed confessional interpretation elevations) about real churches and real people at places like Neland Ave. and beyond?
Hi Andrew. I am not speaking above about judging actions but musing about motivations (and the like). What Synod has done regarding Neland Ave. is rightly judge their actions as a violation of our covenant together, and further as a violation of God's Word. To be sure, Synod recognized the real people involved with Neland Ave. As a delegate to Synod 2022 I was privileged to share a lunch table multiple times with delegate Larry Louters, president of the Neland Ave Church Council. I enjoyed my interactions with Larry and recognize and respect him as a real person. That does not, however, mean that we don't have significant differences. It is fine to acknowledge differences. What I am asking Kent to reconsider is his penchant for categorizing people (against their wishes) and assigning various motivations to them (which they have not expressed, and he cannot know).
In this light your proposed Exhibit B is not an exhibit of what I was pushing back against. I understand that you may not like the conclusions of synod over the last two years, but synod is not only allowed to make these conclusions but is required to. Thanks for engaging.