The grumbling among political conservatives inside the church is a misplaced reaction to the rise of woke, DEI, etc. in political contexts outside the church.
It’s unclear to me why you use the language (twice – once in the subhead and once in the body) of “political conservatives”. It seems to me like you assume and assign a political conservatism among those who have expressed reservations about the training in order to support your assertion that they are simply and erroneously having a reaction to political contexts outside the church. I think this is unfounded/unsupported, and unnecessarily politicizes something that can be explained in spiritual terms. Here again (as I have observed elsewhere in your writing) I think you short-sell delegates who are acting as spiritual agents acting in spiritual manners. I don’t deny that there can also be sociological, psychological, and political elements at play, but I think we do not do well to make these elements the primary motivator or factor in our discussions about church dynamics, as the church is first and foremost a spiritual body.
It is interesting to me that you highlight the question from Brian Kornelis (not Cornelius) and the resultant answer. The grounds of the motion and the answer to Kornelis indicate a basing of the proposed training on the document “God’s Diverse and Unified Family.” But you will search in vain to find the word “privilege” in that document. And none of the 12 uses of the word “power” are in relation to peoples’ power in relation to each other. The training that has then resulted from the passed motion is actually quite foreign to the document it is supposedly based on. What you see expressed from those struggling to appreciate the training is not a political response to spiritual training, but a spiritual response to politicized training. You have accused the wrong party/actors of importing the political.
When I was at synod in 2022 the training was based on the use of a “power wheel”. Again, you won’t find this or anything close to it in the document that was supposed to be the “undergirding” for the training. Instead, it was clearly pulled from the realm of critical studies. “Intersectionality is a lens through which you can see where power comes and collides, where it locks and intersect. It is the acknowledgment that everyone has their own unique experiences of discrimination and privilege.” – Kimberly Crenshaw. So, as I was unpleased with the training offered at that time, I was a spiritual agent unpleased that the political tool from outside the church was being foisted upon us. I was not a political agent responding to the spiritual training being offered based on an agreed upon spiritual document. Again, I note that your analysis is backward, and I think that is true because you have not dug deep enough and gone beyond the soundbites. There are spiritual realities and challenges at play here, and the institutional apparatus has for quite some time taken certain synodical directives and fashioned them to their preference, not necessarily based on or following closely with the original intent.
I wonder, then, if what you call “grumbling” is actually the same sort of push back against the “power and privilege” of some CRC employees that they have called us to do. When they take a general synodical directive and fashion it in a way not reflective of the primary intention or promise, can we not say that they have significant power over the delegates? How have they used that power? Have they listened to delegates who have concerns? By describing these people with concerns as simply grumblers with a political axe to grind aren’t you siding with the powerful and privileged while stifling the voice of those made subject to that power? It’s all a matter of perspective, I guess.
I was intentional in using conservative in the political sense, because I do think the reaction is politically (not theologically) motivated. You are right, though, that it goes both ways: the left has shifted a great deal since 2019, too, probably more than the right.
On this: “I don’t deny that there can also be sociological, psychological, and political elements at play, but I think we do not do well to make these elements the primary motivator or factor in our discussions about church dynamics, as the church is first and foremost a spiritual body.” This is a strong point of disagreement between the two of us, and the source of many of our disagreement on other matters. The church is also an institution and a body of humans, and its subject to the same factors that affect any institution.
I wasn’t intending to call out Brian’s question from 2019; there were only three questions in response to the committee and I noted all of them. It wasn’t meant to single him out.
Regarding the basis of the document, my main point was to draw connections between the general intent of the denomination since at least 1982, and perhaps back to the Timothy Christian Schools incident—however haphazardly or poorly this has been carried out. I haven’t taken a close look and compared the two documents myself.
The grumbling was in reference to what I heard were two (or more) delegates who didn’t fully participate in 2024’s training, along with some chatter on Twitter.
On your last paragraph, ultimately Synod has the power, and to the extent denominational employees are using it, it’s because it’s delegated—and Synod can take it back or change the way it can be used.
To me, the most important takeaway was how the recommendations from the 2019 committee seemed generally the product of GRE/Establishment (I don’t know for sure), and in only five short years, the power dynamic has shifted completely away from them to more conservative classes.
I suspect retitling would go part way to reducing attention, but I would offer that the content itself matters. It's not just the topical framing that matters, but what ideas are forwarded and what philosophy drives the actual content of the training. You'd still see eyerolls and tepid participation with a different title, though perhaps more muted.
Kent, you frame these objections as from "political conservatives inside the church," however the first tweet you highlight is from a member of the Eastern Orthodox church, and the second is from an observant Jew. While both follow and are interested in the CRC (due to their YouTube connection to Paul VanderKlay), "inside the church" is a pretty broad characterization of their objections.
Second, yes, "God's Diverse and Unified Family" is still required reading for every delegate to Synod.
I didn’t feel comfortable saying [delegate A] saw [delegate B] and roll their eyes and [delegate C] didn’t participate in the exercise/discussion. I feel better about using non-CRC voices to illustrate what has started happening on the floor during the training.
I’m not even suggesting it’s widespread. Only that it’s not (virtually) unanimous as it was only five years ago.
Maybe Kent’s screen grab of Lance’s tweet should have then included a CRC Pastors response: “Hopefully for the last time.” or are you saying that particular Pastor’s view is not reflective to the majority “inside” the CRC either?
Hello Kent,
It’s unclear to me why you use the language (twice – once in the subhead and once in the body) of “political conservatives”. It seems to me like you assume and assign a political conservatism among those who have expressed reservations about the training in order to support your assertion that they are simply and erroneously having a reaction to political contexts outside the church. I think this is unfounded/unsupported, and unnecessarily politicizes something that can be explained in spiritual terms. Here again (as I have observed elsewhere in your writing) I think you short-sell delegates who are acting as spiritual agents acting in spiritual manners. I don’t deny that there can also be sociological, psychological, and political elements at play, but I think we do not do well to make these elements the primary motivator or factor in our discussions about church dynamics, as the church is first and foremost a spiritual body.
It is interesting to me that you highlight the question from Brian Kornelis (not Cornelius) and the resultant answer. The grounds of the motion and the answer to Kornelis indicate a basing of the proposed training on the document “God’s Diverse and Unified Family.” But you will search in vain to find the word “privilege” in that document. And none of the 12 uses of the word “power” are in relation to peoples’ power in relation to each other. The training that has then resulted from the passed motion is actually quite foreign to the document it is supposedly based on. What you see expressed from those struggling to appreciate the training is not a political response to spiritual training, but a spiritual response to politicized training. You have accused the wrong party/actors of importing the political.
When I was at synod in 2022 the training was based on the use of a “power wheel”. Again, you won’t find this or anything close to it in the document that was supposed to be the “undergirding” for the training. Instead, it was clearly pulled from the realm of critical studies. “Intersectionality is a lens through which you can see where power comes and collides, where it locks and intersect. It is the acknowledgment that everyone has their own unique experiences of discrimination and privilege.” – Kimberly Crenshaw. So, as I was unpleased with the training offered at that time, I was a spiritual agent unpleased that the political tool from outside the church was being foisted upon us. I was not a political agent responding to the spiritual training being offered based on an agreed upon spiritual document. Again, I note that your analysis is backward, and I think that is true because you have not dug deep enough and gone beyond the soundbites. There are spiritual realities and challenges at play here, and the institutional apparatus has for quite some time taken certain synodical directives and fashioned them to their preference, not necessarily based on or following closely with the original intent.
I wonder, then, if what you call “grumbling” is actually the same sort of push back against the “power and privilege” of some CRC employees that they have called us to do. When they take a general synodical directive and fashion it in a way not reflective of the primary intention or promise, can we not say that they have significant power over the delegates? How have they used that power? Have they listened to delegates who have concerns? By describing these people with concerns as simply grumblers with a political axe to grind aren’t you siding with the powerful and privileged while stifling the voice of those made subject to that power? It’s all a matter of perspective, I guess.
I was intentional in using conservative in the political sense, because I do think the reaction is politically (not theologically) motivated. You are right, though, that it goes both ways: the left has shifted a great deal since 2019, too, probably more than the right.
On this: “I don’t deny that there can also be sociological, psychological, and political elements at play, but I think we do not do well to make these elements the primary motivator or factor in our discussions about church dynamics, as the church is first and foremost a spiritual body.” This is a strong point of disagreement between the two of us, and the source of many of our disagreement on other matters. The church is also an institution and a body of humans, and its subject to the same factors that affect any institution.
I wasn’t intending to call out Brian’s question from 2019; there were only three questions in response to the committee and I noted all of them. It wasn’t meant to single him out.
Regarding the basis of the document, my main point was to draw connections between the general intent of the denomination since at least 1982, and perhaps back to the Timothy Christian Schools incident—however haphazardly or poorly this has been carried out. I haven’t taken a close look and compared the two documents myself.
The grumbling was in reference to what I heard were two (or more) delegates who didn’t fully participate in 2024’s training, along with some chatter on Twitter.
On your last paragraph, ultimately Synod has the power, and to the extent denominational employees are using it, it’s because it’s delegated—and Synod can take it back or change the way it can be used.
To me, the most important takeaway was how the recommendations from the 2019 committee seemed generally the product of GRE/Establishment (I don’t know for sure), and in only five short years, the power dynamic has shifted completely away from them to more conservative classes.
If it were re-titled it would probably get little attention at all. In this cultural climate the title is just culture-war red meat.
I suspect retitling would go part way to reducing attention, but I would offer that the content itself matters. It's not just the topical framing that matters, but what ideas are forwarded and what philosophy drives the actual content of the training. You'd still see eyerolls and tepid participation with a different title, though perhaps more muted.
Kent, you frame these objections as from "political conservatives inside the church," however the first tweet you highlight is from a member of the Eastern Orthodox church, and the second is from an observant Jew. While both follow and are interested in the CRC (due to their YouTube connection to Paul VanderKlay), "inside the church" is a pretty broad characterization of their objections.
Second, yes, "God's Diverse and Unified Family" is still required reading for every delegate to Synod.
I didn’t feel comfortable saying [delegate A] saw [delegate B] and roll their eyes and [delegate C] didn’t participate in the exercise/discussion. I feel better about using non-CRC voices to illustrate what has started happening on the floor during the training.
I’m not even suggesting it’s widespread. Only that it’s not (virtually) unanimous as it was only five years ago.
Maybe Kent’s screen grab of Lance’s tweet should have then included a CRC Pastors response: “Hopefully for the last time.” or are you saying that particular Pastor’s view is not reflective to the majority “inside” the CRC either?