Kent, the Agenda to Synod 2000 brought forward the belief that there are four important categories of theological matters. They are 1) confessional (a bit different than the word is currently used), 2) moral, 3) wisdom and 4) adiaphora. Since I Cor. 6:9-10 teaches that men practicing homosexual acts will not inherit the kingdom of God, it seems very reasonable to think that ssm is a moral concern. Therefore, it is a knowledge-based matter to use the terms here. Windchimes is a matter of adiaphora. If you like them, fine. If you don't, fine. Are these four categories relevant here? I think they are.
It's possible to acquire a belief that the affirming view of marriage is the correct one in a knowledge-based way. It's also possible to acquire this same belief in an affect-based way. Same belief, but two different ways of getting there. For people who acquire it (and can un-acquire it) in a knowledge-based way, a CDG makes sense. For people who acquire it in an affect-based way, a CDG completely misses the point and won't work.
Synod's categories make sense regarding the substance of belief--the thing believes--but they don't speak to how people *acquire* those beliefs. The ability for someone to change their mind has more to do with how a belief is acquired than what the belief actually is.
Thanks for your thoughts on this, Kent. Ultimately, how significant is how we acquire what we believe in comparison to what we believe? In the Judgement Day, will God hold us accountable to how we came to believe Christ is Lord? Or will it only matter that we came to that belief?
If practicing homosexual acts prevents us from inheriting the kingdom of God (I Cor. 6:9-10), it would seem it only matters that we come to understand that fact, not so much how we come to believe it.
Herb, sorry for the delayed response. I was offline most of yesterday and haven't been able to keep up. I'm 100% with you that what we believe is far more important than how we acquire a belief. I'm trying to tease apart what makes changing some beliefs harder (or more impossible) than others. My sense is that the current conversations around gravamina, special discipline for affirming churches, etc. won't be as effective as they could be because they're being written by people who aren't taking this into account. I guess I'm trying to find an explanatory model for the way things *are*, specifically: 1) why it's hard for affirming churches to leave, and 2) why the gravamina process seems to miss something. The current conversations just don't seem to take this into account, which is why I think they will fail.
Kent, I agree that you've found the heart of the issue here for many progressives like myself. Changing deeply-held beliefs is a gradual and organic process. True belief can't be forced by an appeal to authority, especially when that authority rests on a contentious vote of 150 people on an interpretation of one word. It makes the talk of repentance and submission (not to mention short timelines for gravamina) feel both disingenuous and beside the point.
I can see how it has taken years to get to where we are today in the CRC concerning convictions we hold on human sexuality especially. Perhaps I am short-sighted, but I am thinking that sola scriptura, a pillar of our Reformed heritage for 500 years, will be key for us to navigate these waters we currently find ourselves in.
If I may, I'd like to pursue the thought concerning one word. The HSR, in addition to arsenokoitai, deals with Lev. 18:2, 20:13, Rom. 1, I Cor. 6:9-10 etc. etc. Is it really the case that the traditionalist view is based on one word? Thanks.
Herb, I was referring to the interpretation of the word "unchastity" in Heidelberg Q&A 108, not arsenokoitai. I didn't mean that the traditionalist view is based on one word, but rather that the confessional status rests on the interpretation of this one word.
No problem on timing, Kent. From what little I know, it's amazing you keep up with what you do. With what we believe being the ultimate goal, then, I am with you completely.
Kent, I believe that the issue here is that we are dealing with two different definitions of a difficulty. Taking the example of wind chimes, it appears to me that you would not be debating with your wife if such an item could be a good addition to your backyard, not knowing whether to purchase and put one up or not (a difficulty). Instead, you have a settled conviction against wind chimes. Thus, instead of holding a difficulty with the idea of purchasing one, you would need to write a backyard atmosphere revision gravamen, outlining the evils of wind chimes, and why one should never be permitted on your property! If you were asked, and unsure how you feel about wind chimes, 6 months or a year to shop for one, or even try it out, would be more than sufficient. Perhaps during that time, you would come to know and love the beauty of wind chimes. However, if during that trial period, your deep seated anti wind chime convictions were solidified, then one has to move on, and go where they can live at peace.
So, the wind-chime lover should abandon his wife because he has a settled conviction against wind chimes, despite the covenant he made with her?
What if he liked wind chimes when they got married, but has since come to change his mind? Should his wife divorce him because he no longer agrees with her on this matter that is very important to her--even if he's willing to let her put wind chimes all around the backyard?
Yes, the wind chime example is silly, but it gets at the degree of abandonment and loss that many in affirming CRC churches are feeling. (And why they have been so reluctant to move on.) They do indeed have a settled conviction about these matters, and gravamina are an imperfect band-aid. But they also feel they are being forced into an unwanted divorce with the denomination they love.
Lloyd, I understand that you believe that people (and churches) who disagree with the confessionally-binding interpretation of "unchastity" should simply leave the denomination. After all, why do they want to belong to a church that they don't agree with? And why should they be allowed to? On paper, that's very logical. I've read a lot of the Abide Project's work, and I see the internal coherence of the position. I also understand that you're ready to move on, and that it's frustrating to have the affirming folks back at synod carrying on the same fight two years later.
As Kent points out, logic isn't the only thing that motivates people. The emotional commitment to the CRC that's held by many in Classis GR East is a huge obstacle to you achieving your ends of getting affirming people to leave the CRC. These emotions are not just their problem. They're also *your* problem. There are plenty of affirming, non-CRC churches in Grand Rapids, and many people with a lower commitment to the CRC have already left for these churches. As a result, many members who remain in Classis GRE are very committed to the CRC. It's not going to be easy to get them to go.
If you want to avoid many more years of fighting, I suspect you have two options: very heavy top-down discipline from syond, or proactively working with classis GRE and other affirming churches to find a compromise (or even simply a dignified exit path). I don't have a sense of whether moderates at synod will be willing to join you in the kind of top-down discipline it will take to get affirming churches to leave. They weren't willing to last year, and the synodical precedents and mechanisms seem pretty weak, but you may be able to make it happen. If so, it will be very, very ugly.
A more loving and pastoral path forward would be to try to find some sort of compromise solution like I outlined below in my response to Holly. I know there's a million practical reasons why such a path would be difficult at this point, but it will save you many more years of fighting and also better honor our commitments to each other and to following Christ.
K. Snow, yes, getting divorced over wind chimes would be a terrible situation. But, from the traditional side, what it feels more like, is after a couple decades of marriage (being in covenant together), the affirming CRC now wants an "Open marriage" so that they won't be held back in this union, but when we object, they both refuse to give up on pursuing other lovers, while also refusing to leave the home we built together, and then try and gaslight us into believe that we are the ones that are the problem and being unreasonable, when they have unilaterally swapped out their vows.
No illustration is perfect, but that gets us far closer to how I understand the stakes we are dealing with then discussions over wind chimes....
As for the "dignified exit" plan, I'm not sure what all we could or should do? Unlike the RCA or UMC, each church owns its own property. However, whether the congregation can leave the denomination or not (other than by Classis or Synod just cutting them off), is governed by the by-laws of every congregation. Synod could declare that "every church with 30% of the Congregation that wants to be open and affirming, may leave the denomination with such a vote" (not that we would, or that something like that would be healthy, but just as an example), but it would not hod up, because each congregation is still governed by the specific by-laws they have adopted on this matter (which could even say they need a 95% congregational vote to leave the denomination with their building). While I'm personally open to reconsidering the pension plan, as well as suggesting the Seminary debts be forgiven of those leaving, there really isn't that much that Synod could or should do?
At the same time, to be theologically consistent, believing affirming teaching to be a serious error and false teaching that endangers people's salvation, how nice should I really play? Do I take what I believe seriously, if I bless, encourage, and leave all kinds of room for those I believe are in error to continue leading others astray (from my view point)?
Thanks for the response, Lloyd. I appreciate the way you fleshed out the marriage analogy to help me understand your point of view on it.
I appreciated PVK's recent video where he outlined the problems with the overall system of individual discipline within the denomination. Disciplining individuals and not seating delegates are essentially the only levers synod has, so I understand why the traditional side has opted to use these mechanisms. Creating a temporary category like "Associate Churches" might not accomplish what you want as quickly as you want it to happen, and you wouldn't have control over whether affirming churches decided to use it. But much of what a "dignified exit" looks like comes down to the details, and the spirit in which such a plan is made.
To return to the marriage analogy, the *way* a divorce happens has a huge long-term impact on both spouses as well as the children. An ugly and contentious divorce leaves much greater scars than one in which both people are honestly trying to treat each other with respect and do what's best for everyone in the family. I hope and pray that you and your colleagues at Abide try to find a way forward at synod 2024 that leaves as few scars as possible for the churches that remain, the churches that leave, and all of the precious souls in the CRC.
Well, I think we can all agree that the door is closed on petitioning Synod to change the "confession" of the HSR (not itself a confession, but made of confessional status).
So that leaves us with the confessional difficulty gravamen. But where is the middle ground between using such a thing as a "get out of jail free" card - continuing to serve in spite of disagreement, indefinitely - and the hardline position of a deadline by which you must agree or at the least be removed from any office? Is it acceptable to have a percentage of members or congregations claiming a gravamen, while continuing to support things the HSR classifies as unchastity, as long as they are not actually practicing things like same-sex marriage? Or even just continue on as they are, because they have stated that they disagree? Would that, then, mean that a single person living together with their partner could then argue that they, too, should be allowed to hold office, because they have a difficulty with the doctrine of the church on that point?
And, if neither side CAN change what they believe on this point, how is the conflict resolved? I think the 90's taught us that a "local option" attempt at a compromise will not prevent a split, either. Which means that the issue remains a binary choice. And I find it unlikely that the denomination as a whole will change position anytime in the foreseeable future. Both sides consider it an issue of such deep importance that they are unwilling to stay within a church that holds to the opposite view. If things stand as they are, a split to the left seems inevitable. If the desire to avoid that becomes so strong that some sort of exception is created for the objectors, I think there is a strong risk of another rightward split (in some ways, this would be easier this time, because the URC and other NAPARC churches already exist. And have built their own institutions, in which conservative CRC folks would likely feel at home).
What, at this point, is the hope of the "Affirming" side? Understanding that the HSR and its status will not be walked back? What would THEY propose that would allow them to feel comfortable staying, while the denomination holds to the HSR? I genuinely haven't heard any proposals that address this - only requests to relitigate the original decision. More time to marshal arguments or lobby for their position isn't going to change the positions of the other 70%. So what other solution do they propose?
This is a great question, Holly, and a very helpful way to frame it.
(For context, I'm a member of an affirming church in Classis Grand Rapids East, but not on Council or Classis.)
Given the points that you make (that it's unlikely that the confessional status will be changed and that a local option isn't viable) and my knowledge of my own local church, the only solution I can see is a new category of non-voting churches, something like "Associate Churches" or "Affiliate Churches." These churches would acknowledge their disagreement with the interpretation of unchastity and agree not to perform same-sex marriages. They would only be able to send non-voting members to Classis and wouldn't be able to send voting members to syond. They would continue to function as CRC churches in all other respects and they would have the freedom to call any of their members as elders and deacons, including members in (civil) same-sex marriages.
I realize that this is likely a no-go for the traditional side, especially the part about calling married LGBTQ people as office-bearers. I'm not even sure whether my own church would agree to not being able to vote at classis or synod. But something along these lines is probably the only model that would even come close to meeting the key priorities of both sides.
K. Snow, the only concern is that "Affiliate Churches" is a neutral term that doesn't grapple adequately with the need for discipline that some see. Perhaps we can think along the lines of how "individual" discipline is laid out in church order--it tends to be a three step process. Placing someone under the first step of discipline brings with it certain restrictions. An indeterminate time is given before moving on to any subsequent steps. Perhaps Synod could declare that those churches who have stated and who intend to be affirming are in a state of "impaired communion" or "impaired fellowship" with the rest of the denomination. This category would bring with it some restrictions--no delegation to broader assemblies, no orderly exchange of pastors, no delegation to denominational boards. Just as the first step of discipline is not intended to be permanent, so this state would result eventually in disfellowshipping, restoration of full fellowship, or the church transitioning out of the denomination on their own, depending on subsequent action. Orderly and pastoral processes might be put in place for each option (some of which already exist in one form or another) Though each situation would be different, as in individual discipline, one could put in a general "sundown" threshold of five years or so.
I can understand why a neutral term would be problematic for traditionalists. Perhaps there's something that gets at the ambiguity a little better, like Churches in Discernment? Personally, I could live with whatever name would help make this happen, but I don't speak for all in GRE.
The five-year sunset and restrictions you lay out seem pretty reasonable and logical to me. My only question is with the "orderly exchange of pastors." Does the term refer to the privilege of calling RCA pastors? (I've followed this issue closely, but there's still a lot I don't know about CRC church polity.) If so, it would be helpful for churches that are considering the RCA to continue to have the option to call RCA pastors during their discernment period.
K. Snow, sorry, "orderly exchange" wasn't the right term because as you say that's associated with RCA/CRC relations (which may be an entirely different question, if one of the overtures has it's way). I'm drawing from a situation in earlier Dutch Reformed church history where a regional synod (Zwolle) dismissed a minister. The local church and churches in the neighboring region ignored this decision; as a result the ministers of the churches in the region were denied permission by synod to entertain calls to serve as ministers to other churches in the denomination, essentially a kind of theological quarantine. After the resolution of the issue this privilege was reinstated. I wonder, if a state of "impaired fellowship" or forming of a temporary "refuge classis" as some have termed it, would bring along with it a similar restriction.
Ah, I see what you mean now. Thanks for the clarification. I can see why something along those lines might make sense. My main concern would be that it might have the unintended consequence of quarantining conservative-minded pastors who are outnumbered within their progressive classis and would like to jump ship to a new church.
I'm not sure how feasible an option something like this may or may not be, but I wouldn't be concerned about conservative pastors being "stuck" in a majority affirming Classis. My guess is, that individual churches would receive such a label, not an entire Classis. And while pastors in those churches might be stuck there, any that wished to leave to another church in the denomination would be free to do so, providing that they pass another/specific Classis examination (instead of just transferring without any review, which is the current practice). At least in my mind, that is how something like this would be implemented.....
I suppose I am still unclear on what the purpose would be for affirming churches to "stay within the denomination as non-voting churches."
Is the purpose to be able to continue to call themselves CRC? To maintain fellowship with the churches who disagree? To attempt to continue to politick on this issue ad infinitum, in the hopes of engineering a change?
Now, I grant, there are some intangibles, here. I had a conversation with a young co-worker the other day, running down the differences between the RCA and the CRC, along with various off shoots. And I could manage this as someone who was raised CRC, by parents who were raised RCA, and who has circulated even into one of the Presbyterian denominations in my adult live. As I'd laid it out for her, I would say that at this point there is not a lot of difference, theologically, between the ARC churches who have left the RCA and the that of the CRC. What differences there ARE, are cultural.
So, is the proposal that the affirming churches want to remain *culturally* CRC while disagreeing with what the majority have affirmed as official doctrine? I could sort of grok that, although I would counter that BEING affirming is, itself, an attempt to make the CRC more culturally mainline. And that seems to be the general argument coming from that side of the aisle - that cultural context should be considered.
Or is it, as Kent has suggested, an emotional investment in the institutions of the CRC, that creates that deep hold? (See also: PVK's theory that many of the larger Grand Rapids congregations regard (or regarded) themselves AS the CRC. And so were deeply shocked that Synod 2022 went the way it did. Likewise, one of the Abide videos that suggested that the affirming churches have not yet worked their way through all the stages of grief, as yet).
This is, as I commented on another of Kent's posts, something that I, and much of the conservative population have some difficulty wrapping our heads around. I wouldn't have nearly this difficulty wandering across the street to another institution if I felt that I had a fundamental problem with the doctrine of the CRC. (For that matter, I'd likely be pretty comfortable in a URC congregation, if there were one within a reasonably distance).
I do think Lloyd has a point as well - what DOES being loving look like, if the conservatives truly believe that the affirming churches are making a deeply distressing error that could lead themselves and others astray? Presumably, at the very least, even "affiliated" congregations would be prohibited from teaching or functioning against the HSR - thereby potentially leading others astray in the name of the CRC. So I'm not seeing that being acceptable as a solution, either, at least on first blush.
Great questions, Holly. First off, I don't agree with every aspect of PVK's sociological analysis about the Grand Rapids churches, but his overall conculsions are a helpful way to understand the level of shock and grief in the GRE churches after syond 2022. was high. I'd never heard of the CRC before I moved to GR 18 years ago, and it was quite startling to suddenly discover we'd moved to a place where so many people's lives revolved around the CRC and Calvin. (To give you a flavor, within 100 yards of my house, there are 2 retired Calvin staff members across the street, 2 grown pastor's kids next door, an elder two doors down, an ordained pastor 2 doors down on the other side, and a Calvin professor. None of these families attend the same church as mine, but that's how the CRC and Calvin dominate this area.) As a result, the grief doesn't just stem from indivduals feeling forced out of the CRC, or even individual churches, but rather our entire community. It's like the hub is getting pulled out of the wheel.
As I think it over, I think you're right that the model I outlined above isn't a great long-term solution. It's rather a gracious way to offfer a temporary landing pad for progressive churches that need some time to sort this all out and figure out the best way forward. (Especially compared to the dramatic wholesale purge that many of this year's overtures seem to suggest.)
I know there's a lot of frustration with GRE in conservative circles right now, and a sense that we should just leave already. But, even among largely-progressive churches, there is still a range of views on what the next steps should be. People are messy, and it takes a lot of time, patience, and listening to lead a church through this kind of difficult transition in a way that is loving and Christ-honoring. Many churches are just not quite ready to leave yet, and kicking them out via gravamina restrictions, unseating delegates, or declaring them heretics is not the way of Christ.
The reason for staying turns on a set of investments such as the missionaries one supports, or the Christian schools one is dedicated to. These are not light things but often come with real sacrifice. Further, within our community to be “ Christian Reformed” is already read by our neighbors as a strong conservative position. In places like Grand Rapids this cultural, affectional identity is filled with practiced, commitments and yes, glad confession of salvation in Jesus Christ.
Second, one might also think of the current conflict as a sort of spiritual inflammation or perhaps a fever. What is needed, properly, is time. The nature of conflict is for a push on both sides to a maximalist position; we radicalize, as our current cultural polarization so sadly demonstrates. I would suggest that this inflammation is a spiritual challenge—even the “peace” of exile or exclusion doesn’t solve. Israel still laments and prizes the rubble of the ruined city (Ps102:14); then we have the humility of Savior who does not crush the bruised reed or snuff the smoldering wick. Time allows for the pursuit of peace with God; the all too human desire to act promptly, to get it over with can easily result in rash action where Wisdom instead invites us to her house. Time is a gift that allows the possibility of not only trusting one another, but blessing.
Kent, the Agenda to Synod 2000 brought forward the belief that there are four important categories of theological matters. They are 1) confessional (a bit different than the word is currently used), 2) moral, 3) wisdom and 4) adiaphora. Since I Cor. 6:9-10 teaches that men practicing homosexual acts will not inherit the kingdom of God, it seems very reasonable to think that ssm is a moral concern. Therefore, it is a knowledge-based matter to use the terms here. Windchimes is a matter of adiaphora. If you like them, fine. If you don't, fine. Are these four categories relevant here? I think they are.
It's possible to acquire a belief that the affirming view of marriage is the correct one in a knowledge-based way. It's also possible to acquire this same belief in an affect-based way. Same belief, but two different ways of getting there. For people who acquire it (and can un-acquire it) in a knowledge-based way, a CDG makes sense. For people who acquire it in an affect-based way, a CDG completely misses the point and won't work.
Synod's categories make sense regarding the substance of belief--the thing believes--but they don't speak to how people *acquire* those beliefs. The ability for someone to change their mind has more to do with how a belief is acquired than what the belief actually is.
Thanks for your thoughts on this, Kent. Ultimately, how significant is how we acquire what we believe in comparison to what we believe? In the Judgement Day, will God hold us accountable to how we came to believe Christ is Lord? Or will it only matter that we came to that belief?
If practicing homosexual acts prevents us from inheriting the kingdom of God (I Cor. 6:9-10), it would seem it only matters that we come to understand that fact, not so much how we come to believe it.
Herb, sorry for the delayed response. I was offline most of yesterday and haven't been able to keep up. I'm 100% with you that what we believe is far more important than how we acquire a belief. I'm trying to tease apart what makes changing some beliefs harder (or more impossible) than others. My sense is that the current conversations around gravamina, special discipline for affirming churches, etc. won't be as effective as they could be because they're being written by people who aren't taking this into account. I guess I'm trying to find an explanatory model for the way things *are*, specifically: 1) why it's hard for affirming churches to leave, and 2) why the gravamina process seems to miss something. The current conversations just don't seem to take this into account, which is why I think they will fail.
Kent, I agree that you've found the heart of the issue here for many progressives like myself. Changing deeply-held beliefs is a gradual and organic process. True belief can't be forced by an appeal to authority, especially when that authority rests on a contentious vote of 150 people on an interpretation of one word. It makes the talk of repentance and submission (not to mention short timelines for gravamina) feel both disingenuous and beside the point.
I can see how it has taken years to get to where we are today in the CRC concerning convictions we hold on human sexuality especially. Perhaps I am short-sighted, but I am thinking that sola scriptura, a pillar of our Reformed heritage for 500 years, will be key for us to navigate these waters we currently find ourselves in.
If I may, I'd like to pursue the thought concerning one word. The HSR, in addition to arsenokoitai, deals with Lev. 18:2, 20:13, Rom. 1, I Cor. 6:9-10 etc. etc. Is it really the case that the traditionalist view is based on one word? Thanks.
Herb, I was referring to the interpretation of the word "unchastity" in Heidelberg Q&A 108, not arsenokoitai. I didn't mean that the traditionalist view is based on one word, but rather that the confessional status rests on the interpretation of this one word.
No problem on timing, Kent. From what little I know, it's amazing you keep up with what you do. With what we believe being the ultimate goal, then, I am with you completely.
Kent, I believe that the issue here is that we are dealing with two different definitions of a difficulty. Taking the example of wind chimes, it appears to me that you would not be debating with your wife if such an item could be a good addition to your backyard, not knowing whether to purchase and put one up or not (a difficulty). Instead, you have a settled conviction against wind chimes. Thus, instead of holding a difficulty with the idea of purchasing one, you would need to write a backyard atmosphere revision gravamen, outlining the evils of wind chimes, and why one should never be permitted on your property! If you were asked, and unsure how you feel about wind chimes, 6 months or a year to shop for one, or even try it out, would be more than sufficient. Perhaps during that time, you would come to know and love the beauty of wind chimes. However, if during that trial period, your deep seated anti wind chime convictions were solidified, then one has to move on, and go where they can live at peace.
So, the wind-chime lover should abandon his wife because he has a settled conviction against wind chimes, despite the covenant he made with her?
What if he liked wind chimes when they got married, but has since come to change his mind? Should his wife divorce him because he no longer agrees with her on this matter that is very important to her--even if he's willing to let her put wind chimes all around the backyard?
Yes, the wind chime example is silly, but it gets at the degree of abandonment and loss that many in affirming CRC churches are feeling. (And why they have been so reluctant to move on.) They do indeed have a settled conviction about these matters, and gravamina are an imperfect band-aid. But they also feel they are being forced into an unwanted divorce with the denomination they love.
Coming back to add a few thoughts.
Lloyd, I understand that you believe that people (and churches) who disagree with the confessionally-binding interpretation of "unchastity" should simply leave the denomination. After all, why do they want to belong to a church that they don't agree with? And why should they be allowed to? On paper, that's very logical. I've read a lot of the Abide Project's work, and I see the internal coherence of the position. I also understand that you're ready to move on, and that it's frustrating to have the affirming folks back at synod carrying on the same fight two years later.
As Kent points out, logic isn't the only thing that motivates people. The emotional commitment to the CRC that's held by many in Classis GR East is a huge obstacle to you achieving your ends of getting affirming people to leave the CRC. These emotions are not just their problem. They're also *your* problem. There are plenty of affirming, non-CRC churches in Grand Rapids, and many people with a lower commitment to the CRC have already left for these churches. As a result, many members who remain in Classis GRE are very committed to the CRC. It's not going to be easy to get them to go.
If you want to avoid many more years of fighting, I suspect you have two options: very heavy top-down discipline from syond, or proactively working with classis GRE and other affirming churches to find a compromise (or even simply a dignified exit path). I don't have a sense of whether moderates at synod will be willing to join you in the kind of top-down discipline it will take to get affirming churches to leave. They weren't willing to last year, and the synodical precedents and mechanisms seem pretty weak, but you may be able to make it happen. If so, it will be very, very ugly.
A more loving and pastoral path forward would be to try to find some sort of compromise solution like I outlined below in my response to Holly. I know there's a million practical reasons why such a path would be difficult at this point, but it will save you many more years of fighting and also better honor our commitments to each other and to following Christ.
K. Snow, yes, getting divorced over wind chimes would be a terrible situation. But, from the traditional side, what it feels more like, is after a couple decades of marriage (being in covenant together), the affirming CRC now wants an "Open marriage" so that they won't be held back in this union, but when we object, they both refuse to give up on pursuing other lovers, while also refusing to leave the home we built together, and then try and gaslight us into believe that we are the ones that are the problem and being unreasonable, when they have unilaterally swapped out their vows.
No illustration is perfect, but that gets us far closer to how I understand the stakes we are dealing with then discussions over wind chimes....
As for the "dignified exit" plan, I'm not sure what all we could or should do? Unlike the RCA or UMC, each church owns its own property. However, whether the congregation can leave the denomination or not (other than by Classis or Synod just cutting them off), is governed by the by-laws of every congregation. Synod could declare that "every church with 30% of the Congregation that wants to be open and affirming, may leave the denomination with such a vote" (not that we would, or that something like that would be healthy, but just as an example), but it would not hod up, because each congregation is still governed by the specific by-laws they have adopted on this matter (which could even say they need a 95% congregational vote to leave the denomination with their building). While I'm personally open to reconsidering the pension plan, as well as suggesting the Seminary debts be forgiven of those leaving, there really isn't that much that Synod could or should do?
At the same time, to be theologically consistent, believing affirming teaching to be a serious error and false teaching that endangers people's salvation, how nice should I really play? Do I take what I believe seriously, if I bless, encourage, and leave all kinds of room for those I believe are in error to continue leading others astray (from my view point)?
Thanks for the response, Lloyd. I appreciate the way you fleshed out the marriage analogy to help me understand your point of view on it.
I appreciated PVK's recent video where he outlined the problems with the overall system of individual discipline within the denomination. Disciplining individuals and not seating delegates are essentially the only levers synod has, so I understand why the traditional side has opted to use these mechanisms. Creating a temporary category like "Associate Churches" might not accomplish what you want as quickly as you want it to happen, and you wouldn't have control over whether affirming churches decided to use it. But much of what a "dignified exit" looks like comes down to the details, and the spirit in which such a plan is made.
To return to the marriage analogy, the *way* a divorce happens has a huge long-term impact on both spouses as well as the children. An ugly and contentious divorce leaves much greater scars than one in which both people are honestly trying to treat each other with respect and do what's best for everyone in the family. I hope and pray that you and your colleagues at Abide try to find a way forward at synod 2024 that leaves as few scars as possible for the churches that remain, the churches that leave, and all of the precious souls in the CRC.
Well, I think we can all agree that the door is closed on petitioning Synod to change the "confession" of the HSR (not itself a confession, but made of confessional status).
So that leaves us with the confessional difficulty gravamen. But where is the middle ground between using such a thing as a "get out of jail free" card - continuing to serve in spite of disagreement, indefinitely - and the hardline position of a deadline by which you must agree or at the least be removed from any office? Is it acceptable to have a percentage of members or congregations claiming a gravamen, while continuing to support things the HSR classifies as unchastity, as long as they are not actually practicing things like same-sex marriage? Or even just continue on as they are, because they have stated that they disagree? Would that, then, mean that a single person living together with their partner could then argue that they, too, should be allowed to hold office, because they have a difficulty with the doctrine of the church on that point?
And, if neither side CAN change what they believe on this point, how is the conflict resolved? I think the 90's taught us that a "local option" attempt at a compromise will not prevent a split, either. Which means that the issue remains a binary choice. And I find it unlikely that the denomination as a whole will change position anytime in the foreseeable future. Both sides consider it an issue of such deep importance that they are unwilling to stay within a church that holds to the opposite view. If things stand as they are, a split to the left seems inevitable. If the desire to avoid that becomes so strong that some sort of exception is created for the objectors, I think there is a strong risk of another rightward split (in some ways, this would be easier this time, because the URC and other NAPARC churches already exist. And have built their own institutions, in which conservative CRC folks would likely feel at home).
What, at this point, is the hope of the "Affirming" side? Understanding that the HSR and its status will not be walked back? What would THEY propose that would allow them to feel comfortable staying, while the denomination holds to the HSR? I genuinely haven't heard any proposals that address this - only requests to relitigate the original decision. More time to marshal arguments or lobby for their position isn't going to change the positions of the other 70%. So what other solution do they propose?
This is a great question, Holly, and a very helpful way to frame it.
(For context, I'm a member of an affirming church in Classis Grand Rapids East, but not on Council or Classis.)
Given the points that you make (that it's unlikely that the confessional status will be changed and that a local option isn't viable) and my knowledge of my own local church, the only solution I can see is a new category of non-voting churches, something like "Associate Churches" or "Affiliate Churches." These churches would acknowledge their disagreement with the interpretation of unchastity and agree not to perform same-sex marriages. They would only be able to send non-voting members to Classis and wouldn't be able to send voting members to syond. They would continue to function as CRC churches in all other respects and they would have the freedom to call any of their members as elders and deacons, including members in (civil) same-sex marriages.
I realize that this is likely a no-go for the traditional side, especially the part about calling married LGBTQ people as office-bearers. I'm not even sure whether my own church would agree to not being able to vote at classis or synod. But something along these lines is probably the only model that would even come close to meeting the key priorities of both sides.
K. Snow, the only concern is that "Affiliate Churches" is a neutral term that doesn't grapple adequately with the need for discipline that some see. Perhaps we can think along the lines of how "individual" discipline is laid out in church order--it tends to be a three step process. Placing someone under the first step of discipline brings with it certain restrictions. An indeterminate time is given before moving on to any subsequent steps. Perhaps Synod could declare that those churches who have stated and who intend to be affirming are in a state of "impaired communion" or "impaired fellowship" with the rest of the denomination. This category would bring with it some restrictions--no delegation to broader assemblies, no orderly exchange of pastors, no delegation to denominational boards. Just as the first step of discipline is not intended to be permanent, so this state would result eventually in disfellowshipping, restoration of full fellowship, or the church transitioning out of the denomination on their own, depending on subsequent action. Orderly and pastoral processes might be put in place for each option (some of which already exist in one form or another) Though each situation would be different, as in individual discipline, one could put in a general "sundown" threshold of five years or so.
I can understand why a neutral term would be problematic for traditionalists. Perhaps there's something that gets at the ambiguity a little better, like Churches in Discernment? Personally, I could live with whatever name would help make this happen, but I don't speak for all in GRE.
The five-year sunset and restrictions you lay out seem pretty reasonable and logical to me. My only question is with the "orderly exchange of pastors." Does the term refer to the privilege of calling RCA pastors? (I've followed this issue closely, but there's still a lot I don't know about CRC church polity.) If so, it would be helpful for churches that are considering the RCA to continue to have the option to call RCA pastors during their discernment period.
K. Snow, sorry, "orderly exchange" wasn't the right term because as you say that's associated with RCA/CRC relations (which may be an entirely different question, if one of the overtures has it's way). I'm drawing from a situation in earlier Dutch Reformed church history where a regional synod (Zwolle) dismissed a minister. The local church and churches in the neighboring region ignored this decision; as a result the ministers of the churches in the region were denied permission by synod to entertain calls to serve as ministers to other churches in the denomination, essentially a kind of theological quarantine. After the resolution of the issue this privilege was reinstated. I wonder, if a state of "impaired fellowship" or forming of a temporary "refuge classis" as some have termed it, would bring along with it a similar restriction.
Ah, I see what you mean now. Thanks for the clarification. I can see why something along those lines might make sense. My main concern would be that it might have the unintended consequence of quarantining conservative-minded pastors who are outnumbered within their progressive classis and would like to jump ship to a new church.
I'm not sure how feasible an option something like this may or may not be, but I wouldn't be concerned about conservative pastors being "stuck" in a majority affirming Classis. My guess is, that individual churches would receive such a label, not an entire Classis. And while pastors in those churches might be stuck there, any that wished to leave to another church in the denomination would be free to do so, providing that they pass another/specific Classis examination (instead of just transferring without any review, which is the current practice). At least in my mind, that is how something like this would be implemented.....
I suppose I am still unclear on what the purpose would be for affirming churches to "stay within the denomination as non-voting churches."
Is the purpose to be able to continue to call themselves CRC? To maintain fellowship with the churches who disagree? To attempt to continue to politick on this issue ad infinitum, in the hopes of engineering a change?
Now, I grant, there are some intangibles, here. I had a conversation with a young co-worker the other day, running down the differences between the RCA and the CRC, along with various off shoots. And I could manage this as someone who was raised CRC, by parents who were raised RCA, and who has circulated even into one of the Presbyterian denominations in my adult live. As I'd laid it out for her, I would say that at this point there is not a lot of difference, theologically, between the ARC churches who have left the RCA and the that of the CRC. What differences there ARE, are cultural.
So, is the proposal that the affirming churches want to remain *culturally* CRC while disagreeing with what the majority have affirmed as official doctrine? I could sort of grok that, although I would counter that BEING affirming is, itself, an attempt to make the CRC more culturally mainline. And that seems to be the general argument coming from that side of the aisle - that cultural context should be considered.
Or is it, as Kent has suggested, an emotional investment in the institutions of the CRC, that creates that deep hold? (See also: PVK's theory that many of the larger Grand Rapids congregations regard (or regarded) themselves AS the CRC. And so were deeply shocked that Synod 2022 went the way it did. Likewise, one of the Abide videos that suggested that the affirming churches have not yet worked their way through all the stages of grief, as yet).
This is, as I commented on another of Kent's posts, something that I, and much of the conservative population have some difficulty wrapping our heads around. I wouldn't have nearly this difficulty wandering across the street to another institution if I felt that I had a fundamental problem with the doctrine of the CRC. (For that matter, I'd likely be pretty comfortable in a URC congregation, if there were one within a reasonably distance).
I do think Lloyd has a point as well - what DOES being loving look like, if the conservatives truly believe that the affirming churches are making a deeply distressing error that could lead themselves and others astray? Presumably, at the very least, even "affiliated" congregations would be prohibited from teaching or functioning against the HSR - thereby potentially leading others astray in the name of the CRC. So I'm not seeing that being acceptable as a solution, either, at least on first blush.
Great questions, Holly. First off, I don't agree with every aspect of PVK's sociological analysis about the Grand Rapids churches, but his overall conculsions are a helpful way to understand the level of shock and grief in the GRE churches after syond 2022. was high. I'd never heard of the CRC before I moved to GR 18 years ago, and it was quite startling to suddenly discover we'd moved to a place where so many people's lives revolved around the CRC and Calvin. (To give you a flavor, within 100 yards of my house, there are 2 retired Calvin staff members across the street, 2 grown pastor's kids next door, an elder two doors down, an ordained pastor 2 doors down on the other side, and a Calvin professor. None of these families attend the same church as mine, but that's how the CRC and Calvin dominate this area.) As a result, the grief doesn't just stem from indivduals feeling forced out of the CRC, or even individual churches, but rather our entire community. It's like the hub is getting pulled out of the wheel.
As I think it over, I think you're right that the model I outlined above isn't a great long-term solution. It's rather a gracious way to offfer a temporary landing pad for progressive churches that need some time to sort this all out and figure out the best way forward. (Especially compared to the dramatic wholesale purge that many of this year's overtures seem to suggest.)
I know there's a lot of frustration with GRE in conservative circles right now, and a sense that we should just leave already. But, even among largely-progressive churches, there is still a range of views on what the next steps should be. People are messy, and it takes a lot of time, patience, and listening to lead a church through this kind of difficult transition in a way that is loving and Christ-honoring. Many churches are just not quite ready to leave yet, and kicking them out via gravamina restrictions, unseating delegates, or declaring them heretics is not the way of Christ.
The reason for staying turns on a set of investments such as the missionaries one supports, or the Christian schools one is dedicated to. These are not light things but often come with real sacrifice. Further, within our community to be “ Christian Reformed” is already read by our neighbors as a strong conservative position. In places like Grand Rapids this cultural, affectional identity is filled with practiced, commitments and yes, glad confession of salvation in Jesus Christ.
Second, one might also think of the current conflict as a sort of spiritual inflammation or perhaps a fever. What is needed, properly, is time. The nature of conflict is for a push on both sides to a maximalist position; we radicalize, as our current cultural polarization so sadly demonstrates. I would suggest that this inflammation is a spiritual challenge—even the “peace” of exile or exclusion doesn’t solve. Israel still laments and prizes the rubble of the ruined city (Ps102:14); then we have the humility of Savior who does not crush the bruised reed or snuff the smoldering wick. Time allows for the pursuit of peace with God; the all too human desire to act promptly, to get it over with can easily result in rash action where Wisdom instead invites us to her house. Time is a gift that allows the possibility of not only trusting one another, but blessing.