Hi Kent, I paid the no-wait, no-ads price to watch your interview with PVK. It was helpful for me in understanding the CRC better. I’m an outsider. I married a Dutch girl raised at First (formerly) CRC in Ripon. I spent the afternoon reading all your blog posts. I did skip the one about the history of the CRC in Lyndon.
Here’s my thoughts on your five problems with the current discussion.
1. Belief in the truth is acquired supernaturally (2 Cor. 4:6). Holding these beliefs is also supernatural (Jude 24-25). Changing these beliefs locates you elsewhere in the body of Christ (at best) is apostasy (at worst). This accounts for your appeal to the subjective emotionality of belief.
2. (Borrowing your clarification in your response to Cedric) – It seems clear that Committee 8 captured the original intent of those who originated the CDG. Any need to take into account the “central cultural issues of our time” is unrelated to the question of what a CDG is.
3. If officebearers think being dishonest in order to hide their doubts is a viable option they have much bigger problems and, in my opinion, are not qualified to be officebearers.
4. This is unlikely. If the CRC purges the affirming camp (apostate camp?) there’s still many traditionalists who support women in office, etc.
5. I see this as a good thing. The problem is not needing space for subscribers to wrestle with doubt. The problem is our anemic path to ordination. Every church should be raising up and training men to become potential Elders and Deacons. Classis exams for Minster of the Word should be a lot more rigorous. If you compare the average CRC classis exam to the average exam before a PCA Presbytery they are night and day. I’ve never seen a someone ultimately fail an exam in the CRC no matter how ill prepared the candidate was. We should also eliminate the Commissioned Pastor route. We should be able to stand on our confessions. If someone disagrees with our confessions, they should seek to change it or have the integrity to admit they’re located elsewhere in the body of Christ.
Patrick, I haven’t paid for the no-wait, no-ads, so I still haven’t seen the interview. I’m not sure I’ll watch it—I’m not a fan of hearing myself speak. :)
These are good thoughts. I’m still thinking through these items, but here are some rough-draft responses:
On #1, I don’t think I was clear (based on yours and others’ comments). I think the gravamina conversations take very good account of the substance of belief but don’t take seriously the various ways people *acquire* beliefs. We’re given the gifts of reason, logic, feeling, etc., and we’re created as such. I suppose it’s possible for people to acquire beliefs supernaturally, but I don’t know how helpful a position is in terms of explaining anything. If I say God told me Synod should reject the Committee 8 majority report, that’s pretty unhelpful and unproductive for trying to solve the problem; you could say the opposite. One of us is wrong, and it’s the standards by which we figure out who that are relevant. I’m trying to argue that one of these standards is thinking more carefully about how people get to the point of believing something in the first place.
On #2: I agree. I just think two or three cases isn’t much to go off of. Basically, yes, “Committee 8 captured the original intent of those who originated the CDG,” but that’s pretty thin precedent for the current moment.
On #3: I agree. But I also think it hints at problems with the process, too.
On #4: This is inevitable. CDG will *require* office-bearers to resign (or be deposed). Those who remain will be certain in what they believe. And while there’s nothing wrong with certainty, I do think groups of people with 100% certainty about what they think tend to make poorer decisions than groups with less than 100% certainty about what they think.
On #5: Maybe. It might be, actually. I’m just a bit worried that locking down the process and setting a kind of precedent now might tie us in knots in twenty, fifty, or a hundred years from now about some theological or cultural issue that we can’t foresee. On the one hand, I trust our future selves to make good decisions, but on the other hand, it seems like we might be making things more complicated for our future selves.
I think this is all about epistemology. If you believe there is capital "T", Truth and a God who promises to guide His people into all Truth (John 16:13; 17:8; 1 Cor. 2:16). Who tells us that coming to the knowledge of this Truth is supernatural (2 Cor. 4:6). Who tells us He's given us His Spirit as a guarantee that we've "heard the word of truth" (Eph. 1:13), then there's epistemic warrant for certainty. We can't have certainty about a lot in this life. But we can and should be certain about those things God has clearly revealed in His Word and told us we can be certain about (anthropology, God's Laws, redemption, etc.). Some differences in conviction places a person elsewhere in the body Christ. Some differences in conviction places a person outside of the body of Christ. From a worldly perspective, I agree that many people *acquire* beliefs and even beleife in the Truth through various means, and that holding ones belief the Truth usually involves deepening our understanding and potentially locating oneself in a different place within the larger body of Christ… Regardless of the means God uses, the cause is Supernatural (predestination, calling, election, perseverance, etc.).
As a non-Dutch outsider, I see the problem with the CRC is that too many people are trying to draw the circle around a shared ethnicity, background/heritage, or shared experiences (i.e. we went to Dordt together, we were in Cadets, we went to the young Calvinist convention, etc.) and not around the Truths God's Word tells us should unite His people. While I know it will be difficult to divide up what feels like family, it is necessary in order to become united around what really matters and what will give the CRC a future. This is a rip the Band-Aid off moment. I sympathized with Rita's Klein-Geltink's pain on the Synod floor last year but found myself scratching my head about why it really even mattered in the long run. In my opinion a desire to remain unified around these other things is what makes the historical precedent seem like “thin” grounding (because it doesn’t allow someone to remain in while “wresting” with “doubts” that place them out). It’s what will tempt an officebearer to be dishonest (so he can remain a part of something even though his beliefs place him outside of that thing), It’s what drives the fear about those with certainty drawing lines that could matter for future theological or cultural issues.
Synod will need an acapella round singing of “Gravamina, gra-va-miiiii-na, gravamina, gra-va-man” done in the style Thuma Mina was done at LOFT 20 years ago.
Since I've heard it pronounced differently, I always thought it was the muppets singing, "Gravamina, do doo do do do.... gravamina doo do do doo." (Instead of "mah na mah na.") But I kind of like your version better, Andrew, for nostalgia's sake.
I was grinding my teeth in progressive frustration until I got to the last section on the problems faced by Synod 2024 because I think you hit the nail on the head. This is a manipulation of church precident and the precursor to an inquisition, and anyone who pretends otherwise is being naive or deceitful. Traditionalists are fully in control of the CRC so they're within their rights to change the rules. But the Church Order itself says there are "at least two" forms of gravamina, implying there has always been a broad and gracious approach to disagreement. This new era of the CRC will be brutish and bloody, and reflect the church's worst, trauma-inducing methods of doctrinal enforcement. The traditionalists will have their pure church, but at what cost?
I am curious as to why you think "Committee 8 relies too much on historical precedent that is thin at best and ambiguous at worst." As you know, I think the historical precedent is pretty solidly on the side of Committee 8's clarifications.
This was actually going to be the subject of this post, but the introduction got too long and became the actual post. I need to think through this a bit more, but briefly:
The two-ish previous cases covered topics that much of the denomination found pretty esoteric, so I’m not sure those Synods fully thought through the implications of what they were doing. I have in mind this paragraph from Bob Swieringa: “In 1999 James Bratt observed approvingly that the CRCNA has a "new way of doing business." In the sixties the professionals debated the theological issues while the laity stood by confused and apathetic. But by the nineties "the issues were not even noticeably Reformed in origin or argument." The denomination and its administrative arms had become politicized, just like society at large, and it took stands on gender roles, cultural diversity, and individual rights, on similar grounds as society at large. The conservative remnant stood on Scripture, plain and simple, while the progressive majority insisted on living in the "world."” (https://www.swierenga.com/BurnWoodenShoesOrigPaper.html)
This is my tentative take:
Historical precedent matters, but our assemblies routinely make recommendations and decisions based on lots of other grounds. It seems, for this issue, historical precedent is getting outsized weight compared to other factors, especially given that matters of human sexuality, gender, and identity are the central cultural issues of our time, whereas matters of reprobation and other matters from the previous two generations weren’t. It’s true that there are parallels between what is happening now and what has happened before—but it also seems there are enough things unique about the current situation that it warrants looking beyond precedent.
I know this is not a well-formed argument. I still need to unpack this.
I think what you are hitting on here is basically correct. There were three distinct questions that Synod 2023 had to deal with: (1) what does our church order already say about gravamina, (2) should we change what our church order says about gravamina and (3), if so, how? In my opinion, historical precedent matters a lot to the first question, but less to the second and third. My shtick has always been: if Synod wants to change the church order in order to allow people to take exception to the confessions, that's fine. (It might mean that the CRC is not the place for me, but I accept that that is Synod's right). But let's not pretend that the original crafters of Supplement 5 understood confessional-difficulty gravamina as allowing officebearers to take exception to the confessions or to indefinitely harbor serious doubts about them.
Hi Kent, I paid the no-wait, no-ads price to watch your interview with PVK. It was helpful for me in understanding the CRC better. I’m an outsider. I married a Dutch girl raised at First (formerly) CRC in Ripon. I spent the afternoon reading all your blog posts. I did skip the one about the history of the CRC in Lyndon.
Here’s my thoughts on your five problems with the current discussion.
1. Belief in the truth is acquired supernaturally (2 Cor. 4:6). Holding these beliefs is also supernatural (Jude 24-25). Changing these beliefs locates you elsewhere in the body of Christ (at best) is apostasy (at worst). This accounts for your appeal to the subjective emotionality of belief.
2. (Borrowing your clarification in your response to Cedric) – It seems clear that Committee 8 captured the original intent of those who originated the CDG. Any need to take into account the “central cultural issues of our time” is unrelated to the question of what a CDG is.
3. If officebearers think being dishonest in order to hide their doubts is a viable option they have much bigger problems and, in my opinion, are not qualified to be officebearers.
4. This is unlikely. If the CRC purges the affirming camp (apostate camp?) there’s still many traditionalists who support women in office, etc.
5. I see this as a good thing. The problem is not needing space for subscribers to wrestle with doubt. The problem is our anemic path to ordination. Every church should be raising up and training men to become potential Elders and Deacons. Classis exams for Minster of the Word should be a lot more rigorous. If you compare the average CRC classis exam to the average exam before a PCA Presbytery they are night and day. I’ve never seen a someone ultimately fail an exam in the CRC no matter how ill prepared the candidate was. We should also eliminate the Commissioned Pastor route. We should be able to stand on our confessions. If someone disagrees with our confessions, they should seek to change it or have the integrity to admit they’re located elsewhere in the body of Christ.
Patrick, I haven’t paid for the no-wait, no-ads, so I still haven’t seen the interview. I’m not sure I’ll watch it—I’m not a fan of hearing myself speak. :)
These are good thoughts. I’m still thinking through these items, but here are some rough-draft responses:
On #1, I don’t think I was clear (based on yours and others’ comments). I think the gravamina conversations take very good account of the substance of belief but don’t take seriously the various ways people *acquire* beliefs. We’re given the gifts of reason, logic, feeling, etc., and we’re created as such. I suppose it’s possible for people to acquire beliefs supernaturally, but I don’t know how helpful a position is in terms of explaining anything. If I say God told me Synod should reject the Committee 8 majority report, that’s pretty unhelpful and unproductive for trying to solve the problem; you could say the opposite. One of us is wrong, and it’s the standards by which we figure out who that are relevant. I’m trying to argue that one of these standards is thinking more carefully about how people get to the point of believing something in the first place.
On #2: I agree. I just think two or three cases isn’t much to go off of. Basically, yes, “Committee 8 captured the original intent of those who originated the CDG,” but that’s pretty thin precedent for the current moment.
On #3: I agree. But I also think it hints at problems with the process, too.
On #4: This is inevitable. CDG will *require* office-bearers to resign (or be deposed). Those who remain will be certain in what they believe. And while there’s nothing wrong with certainty, I do think groups of people with 100% certainty about what they think tend to make poorer decisions than groups with less than 100% certainty about what they think.
On #5: Maybe. It might be, actually. I’m just a bit worried that locking down the process and setting a kind of precedent now might tie us in knots in twenty, fifty, or a hundred years from now about some theological or cultural issue that we can’t foresee. On the one hand, I trust our future selves to make good decisions, but on the other hand, it seems like we might be making things more complicated for our future selves.
I think this is all about epistemology. If you believe there is capital "T", Truth and a God who promises to guide His people into all Truth (John 16:13; 17:8; 1 Cor. 2:16). Who tells us that coming to the knowledge of this Truth is supernatural (2 Cor. 4:6). Who tells us He's given us His Spirit as a guarantee that we've "heard the word of truth" (Eph. 1:13), then there's epistemic warrant for certainty. We can't have certainty about a lot in this life. But we can and should be certain about those things God has clearly revealed in His Word and told us we can be certain about (anthropology, God's Laws, redemption, etc.). Some differences in conviction places a person elsewhere in the body Christ. Some differences in conviction places a person outside of the body of Christ. From a worldly perspective, I agree that many people *acquire* beliefs and even beleife in the Truth through various means, and that holding ones belief the Truth usually involves deepening our understanding and potentially locating oneself in a different place within the larger body of Christ… Regardless of the means God uses, the cause is Supernatural (predestination, calling, election, perseverance, etc.).
As a non-Dutch outsider, I see the problem with the CRC is that too many people are trying to draw the circle around a shared ethnicity, background/heritage, or shared experiences (i.e. we went to Dordt together, we were in Cadets, we went to the young Calvinist convention, etc.) and not around the Truths God's Word tells us should unite His people. While I know it will be difficult to divide up what feels like family, it is necessary in order to become united around what really matters and what will give the CRC a future. This is a rip the Band-Aid off moment. I sympathized with Rita's Klein-Geltink's pain on the Synod floor last year but found myself scratching my head about why it really even mattered in the long run. In my opinion a desire to remain unified around these other things is what makes the historical precedent seem like “thin” grounding (because it doesn’t allow someone to remain in while “wresting” with “doubts” that place them out). It’s what will tempt an officebearer to be dishonest (so he can remain a part of something even though his beliefs place him outside of that thing), It’s what drives the fear about those with certainty drawing lines that could matter for future theological or cultural issues.
Synod will need an acapella round singing of “Gravamina, gra-va-miiiii-na, gravamina, gra-va-man” done in the style Thuma Mina was done at LOFT 20 years ago.
I will never be able to un-hear this
Since I've heard it pronounced differently, I always thought it was the muppets singing, "Gravamina, do doo do do do.... gravamina doo do do doo." (Instead of "mah na mah na.") But I kind of like your version better, Andrew, for nostalgia's sake.
I was grinding my teeth in progressive frustration until I got to the last section on the problems faced by Synod 2024 because I think you hit the nail on the head. This is a manipulation of church precident and the precursor to an inquisition, and anyone who pretends otherwise is being naive or deceitful. Traditionalists are fully in control of the CRC so they're within their rights to change the rules. But the Church Order itself says there are "at least two" forms of gravamina, implying there has always been a broad and gracious approach to disagreement. This new era of the CRC will be brutish and bloody, and reflect the church's worst, trauma-inducing methods of doctrinal enforcement. The traditionalists will have their pure church, but at what cost?
I am curious as to why you think "Committee 8 relies too much on historical precedent that is thin at best and ambiguous at worst." As you know, I think the historical precedent is pretty solidly on the side of Committee 8's clarifications.
This was actually going to be the subject of this post, but the introduction got too long and became the actual post. I need to think through this a bit more, but briefly:
The two-ish previous cases covered topics that much of the denomination found pretty esoteric, so I’m not sure those Synods fully thought through the implications of what they were doing. I have in mind this paragraph from Bob Swieringa: “In 1999 James Bratt observed approvingly that the CRCNA has a "new way of doing business." In the sixties the professionals debated the theological issues while the laity stood by confused and apathetic. But by the nineties "the issues were not even noticeably Reformed in origin or argument." The denomination and its administrative arms had become politicized, just like society at large, and it took stands on gender roles, cultural diversity, and individual rights, on similar grounds as society at large. The conservative remnant stood on Scripture, plain and simple, while the progressive majority insisted on living in the "world."” (https://www.swierenga.com/BurnWoodenShoesOrigPaper.html)
This is my tentative take:
Historical precedent matters, but our assemblies routinely make recommendations and decisions based on lots of other grounds. It seems, for this issue, historical precedent is getting outsized weight compared to other factors, especially given that matters of human sexuality, gender, and identity are the central cultural issues of our time, whereas matters of reprobation and other matters from the previous two generations weren’t. It’s true that there are parallels between what is happening now and what has happened before—but it also seems there are enough things unique about the current situation that it warrants looking beyond precedent.
I know this is not a well-formed argument. I still need to unpack this.
I think what you are hitting on here is basically correct. There were three distinct questions that Synod 2023 had to deal with: (1) what does our church order already say about gravamina, (2) should we change what our church order says about gravamina and (3), if so, how? In my opinion, historical precedent matters a lot to the first question, but less to the second and third. My shtick has always been: if Synod wants to change the church order in order to allow people to take exception to the confessions, that's fine. (It might mean that the CRC is not the place for me, but I accept that that is Synod's right). But let's not pretend that the original crafters of Supplement 5 understood confessional-difficulty gravamina as allowing officebearers to take exception to the confessions or to indefinitely harbor serious doubts about them.
Eesh. I hit send too quick. I’ll fix.