This sounds like the sort of meeting being held by regional classes. How can this event be distinguished from official ecclesiastical meetings? Isn’t Abide acting like a somewhat secretive, quasi denomination? I’m troubled that the conversation excludes people who question the denominational position. Is that healthy? It sounds like marginalization to me.
No, not at all Thomas. This is a meeting, hosted by a local congregation, in partnership with the Abide Project. This is a meeting that is open to any pastor, officebearer or member that wishes to come, and agrees with the position of the CRCNA on human sexuality (so we don't have to debate what already has been decided)
A Classis meeting however, is limited to a delegation from each of the congregations of the Classes, made up of the officebearers that each Council has delegated (and unless in executive session, all such meetings are open to the public). So no, these gatherings, for fellowship and encouragement, are not in any way a "quasi denomination."
When Abide puts on an event like this it begins to sound like an ecclesiastical event. One stated purpose is to discuss “ Next steps.” Steps for whom? Steps to be taken by churches that some view as disobedient? Steps to be taken by churches that are in alignment with the formal CRC position? Classes that have been told to bring their member churches into alignment? Those are questions related to church order. Would it not be better if a Classis hosted such a regional conversation instead of Abide doing the work of Classis. And wouldn’t next steps in our distressed denomination be better discerned if participants included those who would be most affected by those steps?
At our first regional gathering in Ontario, I believe there were 7 or more Classes represented in the room. So no, there is no reason for each Classis to try and organize and hold such events, when maybe only a few of their members/oficebearers would wish to attend/participate.
As for "next steps," this was an opportunity to learn across Classes and congregational lines, what others are experiencing in their contexts, and also just hold large brain storming/round table discussions, to identify various possible challenges and solutions. If an idea came from these gatherings, that would require Synod's adoption, it could only do so by being submitted to a local council and then classis, in which way it would proceed through the normal process of church order. But, these gatherings are a step or two before even that, should any ides for Synod come out of them (which they may not, as ideas for Synod is not a primary goal by any means). The primary focus, as is stated here, are to host gatherings for fellowship and encouragement.
Meetings of this nature are very common in society and faith. Some meetings can be, and always have been, designed for clarification of topic, like this one. Other meetings welcome all with all perspectives so discussion and debate are encouraged. Theses meetings are also recognized and encouraged by community and faith. The goal in each is unity moving forward regardless of the planned style of meeting. The topic discussions then gain unity in advance of the debate style meeting to follow. At the planned debate meetings both sides present and defend their unified topic position, as in a court of law. The goal again is for one side to prevail with a defended position and attain the goal of unity. That is the current goal of Synod. Synod, from that, is not in a position to enforce unity, nor should it be. Synod convenes with a set policy or agrees to defer for future discussion at a future Synod. Each step along these agreed standards are welcomed with the final goal for Unity.
On a different note... this is interesting data and analysis for all Iowa churches:
https://open.substack.com/pub/ryanburge/p/iowa-is-not-a-particularly-religious?r=1ebu6n&utm_medium=ios&utm_campaign=post
This sounds like the sort of meeting being held by regional classes. How can this event be distinguished from official ecclesiastical meetings? Isn’t Abide acting like a somewhat secretive, quasi denomination? I’m troubled that the conversation excludes people who question the denominational position. Is that healthy? It sounds like marginalization to me.
No, not at all Thomas. This is a meeting, hosted by a local congregation, in partnership with the Abide Project. This is a meeting that is open to any pastor, officebearer or member that wishes to come, and agrees with the position of the CRCNA on human sexuality (so we don't have to debate what already has been decided)
A Classis meeting however, is limited to a delegation from each of the congregations of the Classes, made up of the officebearers that each Council has delegated (and unless in executive session, all such meetings are open to the public). So no, these gatherings, for fellowship and encouragement, are not in any way a "quasi denomination."
When Abide puts on an event like this it begins to sound like an ecclesiastical event. One stated purpose is to discuss “ Next steps.” Steps for whom? Steps to be taken by churches that some view as disobedient? Steps to be taken by churches that are in alignment with the formal CRC position? Classes that have been told to bring their member churches into alignment? Those are questions related to church order. Would it not be better if a Classis hosted such a regional conversation instead of Abide doing the work of Classis. And wouldn’t next steps in our distressed denomination be better discerned if participants included those who would be most affected by those steps?
At our first regional gathering in Ontario, I believe there were 7 or more Classes represented in the room. So no, there is no reason for each Classis to try and organize and hold such events, when maybe only a few of their members/oficebearers would wish to attend/participate.
As for "next steps," this was an opportunity to learn across Classes and congregational lines, what others are experiencing in their contexts, and also just hold large brain storming/round table discussions, to identify various possible challenges and solutions. If an idea came from these gatherings, that would require Synod's adoption, it could only do so by being submitted to a local council and then classis, in which way it would proceed through the normal process of church order. But, these gatherings are a step or two before even that, should any ides for Synod come out of them (which they may not, as ideas for Synod is not a primary goal by any means). The primary focus, as is stated here, are to host gatherings for fellowship and encouragement.
Meetings of this nature are very common in society and faith. Some meetings can be, and always have been, designed for clarification of topic, like this one. Other meetings welcome all with all perspectives so discussion and debate are encouraged. Theses meetings are also recognized and encouraged by community and faith. The goal in each is unity moving forward regardless of the planned style of meeting. The topic discussions then gain unity in advance of the debate style meeting to follow. At the planned debate meetings both sides present and defend their unified topic position, as in a court of law. The goal again is for one side to prevail with a defended position and attain the goal of unity. That is the current goal of Synod. Synod, from that, is not in a position to enforce unity, nor should it be. Synod convenes with a set policy or agrees to defer for future discussion at a future Synod. Each step along these agreed standards are welcomed with the final goal for Unity.