Kent, thanks again for your work and reflection here. Just a little initial pushback amidst the appreciation: 1). the conservative framing of things re: culture vs confession is a contingent and reactive thing. It only came about because the initial response of those in strong disagreement with 2022, etc, often took the form of indignantly showing all their "CRC chips" as though that was relevant to the conversation (see Reformed Journal articles as well as countless Facebook comments). This prompted a reaction on the other side of asking "well, what makes us us, after all?" and things developed from there. 2) I don't think that you can create a dichotomy where norms are only the "unwritten rules". One might say that one of the most important norms of the CRC community is the church order and its supplements itself, the product of a long process of discernment in common on a host of different issues...what marriages are or are not in conflict with the word of God, how a church should respond when it is in disagreement, and what the responsibilities of a classis are in such a case. The vigor of response from the denomination at large came in part from the recognition that this situation was in fact ab-normal.
On your first point, to the extent that this happened--"indignantly showing all their 'CRC chips'"--it still seems to me to be a function of institutional proximity rather than a kind of grounding or justification for their position, at least in the instances I've seen. I do take your point, though, and admit I didn't really follow this at all until the past two years.
On your second point, I don't think church order is normative at all. For example, one of the most basic CRC norms I can think of is synod dress code--button-up plaid shirt if you're a guy. Or, to your point on marriage, church order might dictate who can marry, but a distinctively CRC wedding is *really* defined by ham buns and potato salad in the basement of the CRC and the ritual of the groomsmen kidnapping the bride at the end of the reception. (The most liturgically consistent element in every CRC wedding in Lynden, Washington from 1950-1985 was the car chase.) There are a thousand ways of "being CRC" in these categories, together, define who we are as a denomination. Church order is a lagging indicator of where our collective norms have already taken us.
Thanks for writing this Kent, as I appreciate your push back, and seeing things from a different perspective. While I agree that the Confessions versus Cultural Heritage is far too small of a frame to accurately represent all of our present division, I agree with Jeff Brower's comment, that it does point to a reality and part of how some of this conversation played out. People and groups have absolutely argued that they still belong to the CRC based upon their cultural heritage/family history. But, at the same time, no one became affirming of SSM because they participated in the old circulatory system. Just as you mention the process that Neland, Eastern, and other churches went through to get to their affirming positions, I would propose that there is a deep rooted divide in how these two sides view Scripture. At times, our traditions and history has been able to hold these two parties together in a way that maintained something of our unity, but this SSM issue was too big, the consequences too severe, and there was just no way to continue to walk together with our divergent foundations.
To put it another way, I don't remember if I heard it from a professor at College or Seminary (or possibly I picked it up somewhere different altogether), but we were studying church history, looking at the Fundamentalists controversy in the early twentieth century (which of course divided numerous denominations). It was mentioned that the CRC had avoided that division, and it was said that the reason why was because our churches and theologians were still all speaking Dutch at that time. As such, we were able to somewhat remain united for the last 100 years, without ever fully addressing that issue. However, now those divergent ways of reading God's Word and their fruits have become evident in such a way that it no longer can hold together on SSM. In reality, I think this was the cause of much of the URC/WICO division too, however the denominational/institutional strength in GR was able, as you pointed out, to hold together and produce a different outcome than we now witnessed in the present HSR debate. I don't know when you last read Machen's "Christianity and Liberalism," but though 100 years old, I think that it accurately points to some of the underlying theological presuppositions that have played into our current debate. Yet, the reality is, not all are processing this on that theological level either, and there are cultural influences and arguments being made, as well as the historical/family history currents that come to bear. It isn't an either or, it is all of the above mixed in to cause our present division.
Lloyd, thanks for the response. On this--"I would propose that there is a deep rooted divide in how these two sides view Scripture. At times, our traditions and history has been able to hold these two parties together in a way that maintained something of our unity, but this SSM issue was too big, the consequences too severe, and there was just no way to continue to walk together with our divergent foundations."--I'd like to push back.
One of the reasons I think this debate has been so challenging and unique in the CRC is because both parties have an incredibly high view of Scripture. I see affirming churches holding a high view of Scripture and applying the same Reformed hermeneutic--but reaching a very different conclusion. I realize many would object by saying affirming churches reach a very different conclusion because they hold a *low* view of Scripture, but that's just not true, and it's why it's made the conversation so challenge.
It's also why there are so many people in the CRC who are in the middle on this: the more they spend time on this issue, the less clear it seems. And I agree with you that it's not a simple as our two views on WICO, where the denomination could hold two views. However, I think our struggle to hold two views wouldn't work not because of our hermeneutic, but because the topic is just too culturally and politically loaded right now.
All of this, to me, is what makes the CRC's fight different from the fight in other denominations, e.g. UMC, PCUSA, and maybe even the RCA. Last year after synod, someone who holds an affirming position remarked to me "This would be so much easier if I wasn't theologically conservative." And he meant it. That is the kind of sentence that makes sense in very few places.
Your point about the CRC avoiding the fundamentalist/modernist controversy is spot on. I have never thought about this. Avoiding that debate kept us together for an extra century, but it's also made the current moment so much more complicated.
I can agree that both parties have a "higher" view of scripture. The affirming crowd in the CRC is NOT the same as the affirming crowd in the UMC (or, at least not yet). But, if the hypothesis is that the CRC missed the Modernist/Fundamentalists debate of 100 years ago, and has only started to diverge over those divisions in the last 50 years, it would make sense that what is currently seen in the CRC is not the fully bloomed modernism of parts of the UMC.
Secondly, while it is easy (and somewhat accurate) to declare that all the CRC has a high view of Scripture, I have spoken to many affirming CRC leaders, who would absolutely say that of themselves, but when you get into the debate, they start making the arguments of "Red Letter Christians," and clearly subordinating the teachings of Paul (let alone the OT), rather focusing on a "graceful theology" that they have developed from "Jesus teachings." In reality, this is another form of Marcionism, that does not maintain the Reformed view and value of the whole Canon, but rather has developed a Canon within the Canon. But, again, this represents some of the strings and the strands within the affirming CRC camp, as they have never put forward one clear argument and explanation for our present division. Some are talking birthright, some are discussing Jesus vs. Paul, and others are talking about their impressions and stories of people they know. The division is messy in these ways and more.
You are correct that the theological division between Neland/Eastern and the CRC was too great a distance to maintain unity, and that the foundations that led to affirming SSM have very little to do with Dutch heritage. Those foundations have been hidden in plain sight for at least 100 years.
The current debate is a clash between the "old school" confessionalists and the conservative "conforming confessionalists" (see Rev Parsels' post on this; it's good). The traditional and conforming confessionalists could not keep their own in check, and it led to an affirming theology.
It was proper for the "old school" confessionalists to drive a wedge in the "traditional confessionalists" to maintain unity. The "old school" confessionalists sensed their opportunity and flexed their muscles, effectively running all conforming confessionalists out of the denomination in 2024, even if they maintain a traditional theology. It forced conservative "conforming confessional" churches that held traditional theologies to decide on where their loyalties lie. They could no longer decide to be friends with both. They either had to stay with the denomination or leave with their "affirming" friends.
The denomination did not need the "affirming traditional" confessionalists to be healthy, but the CRC has written its death warrant if we maintain the decisions of Synod 2024. The denomination needs both "old school" and "conforming" confessionalists to be healthy. Without the conforming confessionalists, the CRC will eventually "ossify" (to borrow Rev. Parsel's terminology).
To the extent that the CRC's origins are theological, I see it as trying to hold a tension between fidelity to the confessions and personal and corporate piety, with a strong sense of cultural resistance, especially early on. This posture of cultural resistance changed to a posture of cultural engagement/transformation starting in the late 1800s and culminating in the 1950s-1990s.
Kent, thanks again for your work and reflection here. Just a little initial pushback amidst the appreciation: 1). the conservative framing of things re: culture vs confession is a contingent and reactive thing. It only came about because the initial response of those in strong disagreement with 2022, etc, often took the form of indignantly showing all their "CRC chips" as though that was relevant to the conversation (see Reformed Journal articles as well as countless Facebook comments). This prompted a reaction on the other side of asking "well, what makes us us, after all?" and things developed from there. 2) I don't think that you can create a dichotomy where norms are only the "unwritten rules". One might say that one of the most important norms of the CRC community is the church order and its supplements itself, the product of a long process of discernment in common on a host of different issues...what marriages are or are not in conflict with the word of God, how a church should respond when it is in disagreement, and what the responsibilities of a classis are in such a case. The vigor of response from the denomination at large came in part from the recognition that this situation was in fact ab-normal.
Jeff, these are good points.
On your first point, to the extent that this happened--"indignantly showing all their 'CRC chips'"--it still seems to me to be a function of institutional proximity rather than a kind of grounding or justification for their position, at least in the instances I've seen. I do take your point, though, and admit I didn't really follow this at all until the past two years.
On your second point, I don't think church order is normative at all. For example, one of the most basic CRC norms I can think of is synod dress code--button-up plaid shirt if you're a guy. Or, to your point on marriage, church order might dictate who can marry, but a distinctively CRC wedding is *really* defined by ham buns and potato salad in the basement of the CRC and the ritual of the groomsmen kidnapping the bride at the end of the reception. (The most liturgically consistent element in every CRC wedding in Lynden, Washington from 1950-1985 was the car chase.) There are a thousand ways of "being CRC" in these categories, together, define who we are as a denomination. Church order is a lagging indicator of where our collective norms have already taken us.
Thanks for writing this Kent, as I appreciate your push back, and seeing things from a different perspective. While I agree that the Confessions versus Cultural Heritage is far too small of a frame to accurately represent all of our present division, I agree with Jeff Brower's comment, that it does point to a reality and part of how some of this conversation played out. People and groups have absolutely argued that they still belong to the CRC based upon their cultural heritage/family history. But, at the same time, no one became affirming of SSM because they participated in the old circulatory system. Just as you mention the process that Neland, Eastern, and other churches went through to get to their affirming positions, I would propose that there is a deep rooted divide in how these two sides view Scripture. At times, our traditions and history has been able to hold these two parties together in a way that maintained something of our unity, but this SSM issue was too big, the consequences too severe, and there was just no way to continue to walk together with our divergent foundations.
To put it another way, I don't remember if I heard it from a professor at College or Seminary (or possibly I picked it up somewhere different altogether), but we were studying church history, looking at the Fundamentalists controversy in the early twentieth century (which of course divided numerous denominations). It was mentioned that the CRC had avoided that division, and it was said that the reason why was because our churches and theologians were still all speaking Dutch at that time. As such, we were able to somewhat remain united for the last 100 years, without ever fully addressing that issue. However, now those divergent ways of reading God's Word and their fruits have become evident in such a way that it no longer can hold together on SSM. In reality, I think this was the cause of much of the URC/WICO division too, however the denominational/institutional strength in GR was able, as you pointed out, to hold together and produce a different outcome than we now witnessed in the present HSR debate. I don't know when you last read Machen's "Christianity and Liberalism," but though 100 years old, I think that it accurately points to some of the underlying theological presuppositions that have played into our current debate. Yet, the reality is, not all are processing this on that theological level either, and there are cultural influences and arguments being made, as well as the historical/family history currents that come to bear. It isn't an either or, it is all of the above mixed in to cause our present division.
Lloyd, thanks for the response. On this--"I would propose that there is a deep rooted divide in how these two sides view Scripture. At times, our traditions and history has been able to hold these two parties together in a way that maintained something of our unity, but this SSM issue was too big, the consequences too severe, and there was just no way to continue to walk together with our divergent foundations."--I'd like to push back.
One of the reasons I think this debate has been so challenging and unique in the CRC is because both parties have an incredibly high view of Scripture. I see affirming churches holding a high view of Scripture and applying the same Reformed hermeneutic--but reaching a very different conclusion. I realize many would object by saying affirming churches reach a very different conclusion because they hold a *low* view of Scripture, but that's just not true, and it's why it's made the conversation so challenge.
It's also why there are so many people in the CRC who are in the middle on this: the more they spend time on this issue, the less clear it seems. And I agree with you that it's not a simple as our two views on WICO, where the denomination could hold two views. However, I think our struggle to hold two views wouldn't work not because of our hermeneutic, but because the topic is just too culturally and politically loaded right now.
All of this, to me, is what makes the CRC's fight different from the fight in other denominations, e.g. UMC, PCUSA, and maybe even the RCA. Last year after synod, someone who holds an affirming position remarked to me "This would be so much easier if I wasn't theologically conservative." And he meant it. That is the kind of sentence that makes sense in very few places.
Your point about the CRC avoiding the fundamentalist/modernist controversy is spot on. I have never thought about this. Avoiding that debate kept us together for an extra century, but it's also made the current moment so much more complicated.
I can agree that both parties have a "higher" view of scripture. The affirming crowd in the CRC is NOT the same as the affirming crowd in the UMC (or, at least not yet). But, if the hypothesis is that the CRC missed the Modernist/Fundamentalists debate of 100 years ago, and has only started to diverge over those divisions in the last 50 years, it would make sense that what is currently seen in the CRC is not the fully bloomed modernism of parts of the UMC.
Secondly, while it is easy (and somewhat accurate) to declare that all the CRC has a high view of Scripture, I have spoken to many affirming CRC leaders, who would absolutely say that of themselves, but when you get into the debate, they start making the arguments of "Red Letter Christians," and clearly subordinating the teachings of Paul (let alone the OT), rather focusing on a "graceful theology" that they have developed from "Jesus teachings." In reality, this is another form of Marcionism, that does not maintain the Reformed view and value of the whole Canon, but rather has developed a Canon within the Canon. But, again, this represents some of the strings and the strands within the affirming CRC camp, as they have never put forward one clear argument and explanation for our present division. Some are talking birthright, some are discussing Jesus vs. Paul, and others are talking about their impressions and stories of people they know. The division is messy in these ways and more.
Lloyd
Lloyd,
You are correct that the theological division between Neland/Eastern and the CRC was too great a distance to maintain unity, and that the foundations that led to affirming SSM have very little to do with Dutch heritage. Those foundations have been hidden in plain sight for at least 100 years.
The current debate is a clash between the "old school" confessionalists and the conservative "conforming confessionalists" (see Rev Parsels' post on this; it's good). The traditional and conforming confessionalists could not keep their own in check, and it led to an affirming theology.
It was proper for the "old school" confessionalists to drive a wedge in the "traditional confessionalists" to maintain unity. The "old school" confessionalists sensed their opportunity and flexed their muscles, effectively running all conforming confessionalists out of the denomination in 2024, even if they maintain a traditional theology. It forced conservative "conforming confessional" churches that held traditional theologies to decide on where their loyalties lie. They could no longer decide to be friends with both. They either had to stay with the denomination or leave with their "affirming" friends.
The denomination did not need the "affirming traditional" confessionalists to be healthy, but the CRC has written its death warrant if we maintain the decisions of Synod 2024. The denomination needs both "old school" and "conforming" confessionalists to be healthy. Without the conforming confessionalists, the CRC will eventually "ossify" (to borrow Rev. Parsel's terminology).
Ryan
For reference, Bentley is spelled with an “ey” at the end. Thanks for quoting.
To the extent that the CRC's origins are theological, I see it as trying to hold a tension between fidelity to the confessions and personal and corporate piety, with a strong sense of cultural resistance, especially early on. This posture of cultural resistance changed to a posture of cultural engagement/transformation starting in the late 1800s and culminating in the 1950s-1990s.