Thank you for writing this informative and winsome reflection on an issue that my church has struggled with. It was a blessing to read. I have shared it.
Pastor Craig - here's the CONCLUSION (Part 3 of 3)
CONCLUSION: I would LOVE the CRCNA to have a good biblical, theological and confessional open and transparent conversation around this topic of same-sex marriage, and as we do so, I would LOVE if the CRCNA could demonstrate the best of Christian virtue of the body of Christ (I think of the fruits of the Spirit, mutual respect of a covenant community and minimizing of offensive language and 'threats', and wise Spirit-led discernment not only around biblical conclusions but also about how to potentially go our separate ways when we land in different convictions).
1. I am understanding your article correctly, you also want this. Do I have this right? Can we work on this together?
2. Further, could it be that Abide, and Hesed, and All One Body, and Better Together actually align on this desire? Perhaps all those organizations could get behind this?
Hey Paul, I'm grateful for your engagement, and particularly grateful for your careful reading of my article. I think you understood me well...or at least I feel very understood by your comments, which I receive as a gift. Thank you for that.
To get right to your concluding comments, yes, you do understand correctly that my heart's desire would be to find a way to walk through this moment in which we do our utmost to honour the 6th and 9th commandments in our interactions with one another. As counter-intuitive and inflammatory as it may sound, it's part of why I think some of us should figure out a way to part sooner than later. The longer we think we can reconcile irreconcilable convictions (i.e. the convictions that affirming interpretations are compatible with vs. destructive to our commitment to scripture and our covenantal life together), the more angry I think we'll become with one another, and the longer I fear we'll do little more than just beat each other up. Ironically, I think we'd honour God's will MORE by separating quickly but maintaining genuine concern for one another, versus trying to do the (IMO) impossible and fomenting all kinds of animus toward one another. (To reference my colleague Aaron Vriesman again, he actually wrote a Banner article about this well before the HSR came out, but as you can imagine, at that time it was viewed by many as being deeply schismatic and/or histrionic.)
I think many of us who are affiliated with Abide would be surprised to hear that Hesed, All One Body, and/or Better Together would be interested in working toward (what might be called) a gracious separation. I know that there's a group that's working toward a separate CRC in Canada, but I think their stated goals and motivations are much more geographical / cultural than the HSR debate (though I suspect some overlap). So I can't speak for Abide as a whole (because we're too grassroots for me to presume that mantle), but I suspect many of us would be willing partners in finding a way to go our separate ways that's at least more charitable than it could be. I know you mentioned "good biblical, theological, and confessional conversation" prior to such a decision to part, and there may be ways for us to do that better. But I also know that many of us who are officially affiliated with Abide feel like we've done a pretty fair job of listening to affirming interpretations (though I recognize that's just simply not the case for everyone who agrees with the HSR). So I can't guarantee a lot of appetite within Abide itself to pursue that conversation. I guess it depends on what it looks like.
Thanks again, Paul. As noted, I very much appreciate the tone of your response.
Thanks for the reply, Craig. As you might know or guess, I have folks I know that are part of all these groups (Abide, Hesed, All One Body, Better Together, Toward CRC Canada). I may float a 'Golden Bridge / Separation Task Force' Overture through those circles (the "Golden Bridge" name is from Ryan Schreiber via Sun Tzu’s "The Art of War").
As to the affirming theology, I have the (arrogant?) sense that many in our CRC community are quite astute biblical theologians. And that, perhaps, some of the affirming folks might be able to articulate a couple versions of a "best case biblical and theological affirmation of SSM" (I mention versionS because some would orient to an accommodation route, and others would not). And since I think my Abide siblings in Christ are also astute biblical theologians, I would treasure the pushback and feedback so that such a case could be (potentially?) more articulate. Perhaps it'll help us both refine what we mean (and don't mean) by Reformed hermeneutics. Perhaps such back and forth will help us see how we read the Confessions similarly, and where we part ways.
So I don't imagine that process as 'convincing one another' - but as 'iron sharpening iron' - perhaps simultaneously as we also recognize that (for many of us) holding both of those conclusions in the same covenant community is too challenging to sustain.
But (and I'd LOVE to hear how this sounds to you), if there is going to be an affirming biblical theology in the world, I'd love it to be as heartily biblical and robustly theological as possible, pointing us to engagement with and submission to God and God's revelation in Scripture -- and not shying away from it. Some of the affirming-speak is pretty flacid, in my mind -- as is some of the traditional-speak (again, in my mind).
Paul, there is a trial-run or ramp-up opportunity that could be utilized here. For the last 20 years I've been involved in dialogues with ministers on various topics. I have a Masters of Theological Studies degree from Calvin Seminary (1987). Our son asked me to read Brownson's book in 2014, which I did. The Dialogos Studies website (https://dialogos-studies.com/) contains the material that resulted. After studying Brownson's book, the Grand Rapids East Report of 2016 was studied. After that, the videos of All One Body.
A good biblical, theological discussion could be had with members of the CRCNA, Abide, Better Together etc. at this website. Anyone participating could take any topic and present material to be considered. People from the various groups and various positions could comment on that material. Also, emails covering these dialogues could be sent to 3,500 RCA and CRC pastors to encourage further discussions. This would be a good way that iron could sharpen iron.
This discussion could take place until something else is arranged between the groups you mentioned. It is very flexible in that it could be a one-off, or it could go for an extended period of time. Let me know what you think. We could easily discuss the pros and cons of this. Thanks.
My Responses to Section 2 – Less point for point; hopefully it engages with all you’ve written
1. We align. I hear you desiring to follow Christ, to submit to Scriptural teaching, and to do so with conviction and without cowardice. Here, I think we precisely align. I desire those same three things.
2. We align. You say, ‘Scripture teaches with unmistakable clarity that there are many moral matters on which the church simply must take a stand, and sexual immorality is one of those matters.’ I agree; I see that in the seventh commandment – “You shall not commit adultery,” and I believe (like the HC articulates) that this is not just about adultery, but about Jesus as Lord of our sexual lives. These teachings (7th commandment; HC 108) are a part of our denominational accountability – and I have always been fine with that. I imagine we would align on the unmistakable biblical clarity around sex trafficking and sexual abuse, for instance.
3. YES…,I believe you are fully convinced of your biblical interpretations.
4. YES…,I believe you need to follow Christian convictions. To do otherwise is unfaithful discipleship.
5. YES…,I believe you are aiming to love as best you know from your biblical interpretations and Christian convictions.
6. YES…,I choose to believe you when you say you are not operating out of homophobia or fear. I have continually chosen not to say you (or others like you) are operating out of fear, as I choose to trust your words rather than trust any assumed motivation for your actions.
7. YES…,I understand your concern about deeper and longer-term implications of the debate we are having right now.
a. One concern you mention is the ‘trajectory of denominations.’ I hear you – though I am interested in stats about Canadian denominations (the ones you mention are all exclusively US-based; and an ELCIC pastor yesterday simply noted that the ‘local option’ is working quite well for them).
b. A second concern you mention is the ‘preponderance of non-scriptural arguments put forth against the conclusions of the Human Sexuality Report.’ I would LOVE to have a biblical, theological and confessional conversation – so I understand your concern. At the same time, I think many of us fully understood that the HSR was likely to come back with a traditional conclusion (look at the committee make-up); but many of us understood that it was ok to ‘respectfully disagree’ with such decisions of synod (as many do with climate care conclusions). So for us, the big surprise was the ‘confessional status’ conclusion, its binding nature, and the result that we would be excluded from holding office in the CRCNA. Perhaps it helps, then, for you to understand that many of us didn’t feel we needed to show our biblical work upfront, as we understand that the HSR was very helpful for giving biblical rooting for the majority position in the CRCNA. In a similar way, not many have given biblical arguments back when climate care conclusions were expressed, because many concerns were more about practical matters.
8. We do not align. Your reading of Scripture has brought you to some very specific conclusions about same-sex marriage where you believe Scripture teaches ‘with unmistakable clarity.’ I do not agree with your Scriptural interpretations. And would LOVE the CRC to have that biblical, theological and confessional conversation much more openly, honestly, and without all the ‘threats’ which you yourself name in your article (loss of job, family without paycheck, etc). These threats have been very real ‘wrenches’ in my situation because of our classis.
9. So we need good, hearty biblical conversation. More than anything in the CRCNA, right now, that’s what I want. Can we do this? Can we give space to those with whom we disagree to deeply articulate their biblical, theological, and confessional conclusions? Can we name out loud that – as we do this hard work – it will probably mean that we cannot end up in the same denomination, but that we will honour one another as we have this hearty biblical conversation, and then we will also work to honour one another as we (likely) find ourselves needing to be in separate covenant communities – in order for everyone to find a fitting covenant home for their biblical convictions?
10. How would a CRC minister affirm same-sex marriage in a biblical, theological and confessional way? To have a hearty, open, honest conversation, I think those who are not ‘affirming’ of same-sex marriage need to be able to understand how those who are ‘affirming’ of same-sex marriage would make their case. Only then, can we actually talk to one another – rather than talking loudly, while actually missing one another. In my opinion, many of the Abide articles on this website are very articulate – but they are not speaking about the CRC ‘affirming’ folks that I know. And they are certainly not discussing the BEST biblical, theological and confessional case for affirming same-sex marriage. So I don’t see those articles as helpful for our dialogue. I have spoken in person, for instance, with Pastor Lora Copley about her articles. On CRC-Voices, they have a phrase for that: “Let’s not ‘straw-man’ the other’s position, but ‘steel-man’ the other’s position.” This is what Herman Bavink was known for – ‘he honoured his opponents. He always painted them in the strongest colors—he gave such a sympathetic portrayal that you would think it was his own position.”
Paul, in response to 7. b., I think this is a poor argument. Even if it was the case, if the Affirming side had their whole theological/Biblical arguments and reasoning, but were just holding back in 2022, they certainly could have sent them in 2023, or even as confessional revision gravamen in 2024? The Reformed Journal recently published a piece trying to make the affirming case. I didn't bother commenting, because there was very little new there, and nothing I found compelling. Numerous affirming books have been written. Numerous denominations have had this same battle. Where are these super winning arguments? I have heard many of the arguments. I had breakfast with 3 GRE Elders this morning, and they tried to lay out their side once again. I've read and listened to what the affirming side has put forth, and like Craig said, especially reading the anti-HSR overtures in 2023, they made the same case over and over again, and it is not compelling, nor in line with reformed Biblical interpretation in my estimation. The Affirming side of the visible church has been making their case for 20+ years, and what do they have to show for it?
Just to be honest, I don't think 7.b. was me trying to put forward an argument or even defend that behaviour. It was only to help Craig understand what he is experiencing. In Craig's article, he seemed to be naming that there is so little biblical conversation from the 'affirming' side. I was trying to help Craig understand why, in my opinion, the biblical arguments have been delayed -- because the focus was primarily on 'can we even stay under these current decisions?'
The overall point of my long post is that we SHOULD have a good, hearty, open biblical conversation, and then find a way to wisely and gently divide, if that's what (unfortunately, in my opinion) needs to happen.
Pastor Craig - I wrote a response. It is long...the website told me "please type a shorter comment." I will try to divide this comment into multiple pieces. Hope it still works.
PART 1
Pastor Craig, this is Pastor Paul. I am one of those who ‘disagree with Synod’s decisions.’ I have had lots of painful interaction with folks connected to and followers of the Abide Project – having a letter saying I’m ‘deceived by Satan’ sent to my house from a church council in my classis, being dismissed as a ‘false teacher,’ a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing,’ and more. But, as much as God enables me, I intend to trust the words of another when they say they want to listen and want to be understood. So I will try to respond to this article of yours. I will likely make mistakes in understanding you as well as mistakes articulating my perspective. Please be as gentle and gracious as you, by Christ’s Spirit, are able.
My Responses to Section 1 – a series of ‘YES…AND…’ (hope that’s ok)
1. YES…, I feel like I’m in danger of losing a home I love. I’ve been a pastor for 20 years, and a member since birth (48+ years), and I’ve never struggled with the basics of the Creeds or Confessions until this recent interpretation. In terms of LD 108, “Yes! Jesus is Lord of our whole lives, including our sexual lives!” Now we just need to wisely listen to Scripture with the Spirit to discern the way forward. Can I get an “Amen!”?
AND… what I love most about the CRC shines more through “Our World Belongs to God,” as I love our comprehensive “worldview” imagination as seen through the lens of the Gospel of Jesus’ incarnation, life, death and resurrection – and how as Lord of all creation, ours is an ‘all things’ story of a good creation, of our human culpability in the fall and the curse, and then a blessed redemption that goes ‘far as the curse is found.’ That story makes my heart sing – and I’ve felt like a member of a choir in the CRCNA. I first learned the vocational breadth of that song as an engineering student at Dordt. And while ‘worldview’ wasn’t a core conversation in my 7 years at Calvin Theological Seminary (it’s more of a CRC university conversation), I did take an elective with Dr. John Cooper on “Reformed worldview” and he said (I’ll pretend this is an exact quote), “Only the CRCNA could have produced ‘Our World Belongs to God.’ That all-encompassing Reformed worldview is a gift God gave us to steward for his body as we engage with his mission in the world.” So, loss – if I need to leave the CRCNA, what other choir that sings that beloved verse can I join?
2. YES…, I think the painful disagreements of the last years have thrown a wrench in a lot of places. I’m sorry the wrench in your congregation has been painful – and I have seen it be painful in many ‘mixed’ congregations (Canada has a lot of those, as you know). Many congregations, at least in Canada, wish that synod would not ‘reach down’ as strongly as it has. Yes! Articulate our traditional theology on human sexuality – but to make everyone have to agree with it has disturbed a lot of local congregations (as it would if every officebearer in the CRCNA had to agree on our synodical decisions on climate care, which also connects to the HC).
AND… as for me, personally, our local congregation (with two pastors who hold the traditional position on marriage; but with officebearers and members who have a whole range of thoughts), is navigating this fairly graciously as a local ‘mixed’ congregation – as both of our pastors and all of our council have said, “We will not let synodical decisions divide us.” We have had baptisms and professions of faith in three languages since then. And my own ministry as a pastor – a campus minister at UCalgary – is thriving, even as I continue to do as I have always done, articulate the CRCNA’s position on human sexuality openly while also naming that some within the CRCNA do not come to the same convictions. The places where I and our church are most involved in the ‘wrenches’ are in our classis (Alberta South & Saskatchewan) and in our synodical deliberations. But locally, our missional work of ‘reaching out, drawing in, creating a mosaic community’ (church vision) and ‘being a presence of Christ’s love in the world of higher education’ (ministry vision) are thriving.
3. YES…, I have grave concerns about how our synodical decisions are affecting ‘those who are gay or same-sex attracted.’ I have talked to many LGBT folks in the CRCNA – folks whose convictions are across the whole spectrum; not one of them yet has said, “The CRCNA and Synod are doing a great job of working through this!” (Yes, I’m sure I or you could find someone who would say that – but my take is that a large majority of LGBT folks in the CRCNA have said that we have not really listened to them in this conversation – this seems verified in the agenda for Synod 2022.)
AND… I have equally significant concern about how we are reading Scripture and engaging this conversation in the CRCNA. Your paragraphs do not seem to name what I think is the most important thing you can understand about me – and probably many more like me. We land where we land because of our engagement with Scripture and the Spirit. You say “a big piece of what motivates you in this debate is the pain and neglect of vulnerable people…” Yes, for many. For me, I am the pastor to many LGBT folks – and it seems to be going well as I invite them into an engagement with Jesus, with Scripture, with Christian community (note: it is true that I do not follow the pastoral care advice of the HSR). What isn’t going well, in my opinion, is our CRC conversations – where my concern is primarily about Reformed hermeneutics of Scripture, Reformed systematic and practical theology, and how we engage with one another when we differ on where those lead us. Thus, much of my work in those fields has been about the biblical and theological problems of the HSR and un-Christian posture that seems to be a hallmark of our synodical and CRCNA dialogue (calling other pastors ‘anti-Christ’, ‘false teacher,’ ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’, etc are examples I take seriously). It feels like we have been focused on making potent decisions, rather than gathering in ways that promote discernment as a community – discernment which might lead to going separate ways, but would likely allow us to conclude that together, in mutual submission and mutual respect.
Thank you for writing this informative and winsome reflection on an issue that my church has struggled with. It was a blessing to read. I have shared it.
Greg Williams
www.christiansoldier21.org
Thanks Craig. Well put.
Pastor Craig - here's the CONCLUSION (Part 3 of 3)
CONCLUSION: I would LOVE the CRCNA to have a good biblical, theological and confessional open and transparent conversation around this topic of same-sex marriage, and as we do so, I would LOVE if the CRCNA could demonstrate the best of Christian virtue of the body of Christ (I think of the fruits of the Spirit, mutual respect of a covenant community and minimizing of offensive language and 'threats', and wise Spirit-led discernment not only around biblical conclusions but also about how to potentially go our separate ways when we land in different convictions).
1. I am understanding your article correctly, you also want this. Do I have this right? Can we work on this together?
2. Further, could it be that Abide, and Hesed, and All One Body, and Better Together actually align on this desire? Perhaps all those organizations could get behind this?
Hey Paul, I'm grateful for your engagement, and particularly grateful for your careful reading of my article. I think you understood me well...or at least I feel very understood by your comments, which I receive as a gift. Thank you for that.
To get right to your concluding comments, yes, you do understand correctly that my heart's desire would be to find a way to walk through this moment in which we do our utmost to honour the 6th and 9th commandments in our interactions with one another. As counter-intuitive and inflammatory as it may sound, it's part of why I think some of us should figure out a way to part sooner than later. The longer we think we can reconcile irreconcilable convictions (i.e. the convictions that affirming interpretations are compatible with vs. destructive to our commitment to scripture and our covenantal life together), the more angry I think we'll become with one another, and the longer I fear we'll do little more than just beat each other up. Ironically, I think we'd honour God's will MORE by separating quickly but maintaining genuine concern for one another, versus trying to do the (IMO) impossible and fomenting all kinds of animus toward one another. (To reference my colleague Aaron Vriesman again, he actually wrote a Banner article about this well before the HSR came out, but as you can imagine, at that time it was viewed by many as being deeply schismatic and/or histrionic.)
I think many of us who are affiliated with Abide would be surprised to hear that Hesed, All One Body, and/or Better Together would be interested in working toward (what might be called) a gracious separation. I know that there's a group that's working toward a separate CRC in Canada, but I think their stated goals and motivations are much more geographical / cultural than the HSR debate (though I suspect some overlap). So I can't speak for Abide as a whole (because we're too grassroots for me to presume that mantle), but I suspect many of us would be willing partners in finding a way to go our separate ways that's at least more charitable than it could be. I know you mentioned "good biblical, theological, and confessional conversation" prior to such a decision to part, and there may be ways for us to do that better. But I also know that many of us who are officially affiliated with Abide feel like we've done a pretty fair job of listening to affirming interpretations (though I recognize that's just simply not the case for everyone who agrees with the HSR). So I can't guarantee a lot of appetite within Abide itself to pursue that conversation. I guess it depends on what it looks like.
Thanks again, Paul. As noted, I very much appreciate the tone of your response.
Thanks for the reply, Craig. As you might know or guess, I have folks I know that are part of all these groups (Abide, Hesed, All One Body, Better Together, Toward CRC Canada). I may float a 'Golden Bridge / Separation Task Force' Overture through those circles (the "Golden Bridge" name is from Ryan Schreiber via Sun Tzu’s "The Art of War").
As to the affirming theology, I have the (arrogant?) sense that many in our CRC community are quite astute biblical theologians. And that, perhaps, some of the affirming folks might be able to articulate a couple versions of a "best case biblical and theological affirmation of SSM" (I mention versionS because some would orient to an accommodation route, and others would not). And since I think my Abide siblings in Christ are also astute biblical theologians, I would treasure the pushback and feedback so that such a case could be (potentially?) more articulate. Perhaps it'll help us both refine what we mean (and don't mean) by Reformed hermeneutics. Perhaps such back and forth will help us see how we read the Confessions similarly, and where we part ways.
So I don't imagine that process as 'convincing one another' - but as 'iron sharpening iron' - perhaps simultaneously as we also recognize that (for many of us) holding both of those conclusions in the same covenant community is too challenging to sustain.
But (and I'd LOVE to hear how this sounds to you), if there is going to be an affirming biblical theology in the world, I'd love it to be as heartily biblical and robustly theological as possible, pointing us to engagement with and submission to God and God's revelation in Scripture -- and not shying away from it. Some of the affirming-speak is pretty flacid, in my mind -- as is some of the traditional-speak (again, in my mind).
Even standing on the other side of things, that's a sentiment I can appreciate. Thanks Paul.
Paul, there is a trial-run or ramp-up opportunity that could be utilized here. For the last 20 years I've been involved in dialogues with ministers on various topics. I have a Masters of Theological Studies degree from Calvin Seminary (1987). Our son asked me to read Brownson's book in 2014, which I did. The Dialogos Studies website (https://dialogos-studies.com/) contains the material that resulted. After studying Brownson's book, the Grand Rapids East Report of 2016 was studied. After that, the videos of All One Body.
A good biblical, theological discussion could be had with members of the CRCNA, Abide, Better Together etc. at this website. Anyone participating could take any topic and present material to be considered. People from the various groups and various positions could comment on that material. Also, emails covering these dialogues could be sent to 3,500 RCA and CRC pastors to encourage further discussions. This would be a good way that iron could sharpen iron.
This discussion could take place until something else is arranged between the groups you mentioned. It is very flexible in that it could be a one-off, or it could go for an extended period of time. Let me know what you think. We could easily discuss the pros and cons of this. Thanks.
Pastor Craig - Here's my response continued...
PART 2
My Responses to Section 2 – Less point for point; hopefully it engages with all you’ve written
1. We align. I hear you desiring to follow Christ, to submit to Scriptural teaching, and to do so with conviction and without cowardice. Here, I think we precisely align. I desire those same three things.
2. We align. You say, ‘Scripture teaches with unmistakable clarity that there are many moral matters on which the church simply must take a stand, and sexual immorality is one of those matters.’ I agree; I see that in the seventh commandment – “You shall not commit adultery,” and I believe (like the HC articulates) that this is not just about adultery, but about Jesus as Lord of our sexual lives. These teachings (7th commandment; HC 108) are a part of our denominational accountability – and I have always been fine with that. I imagine we would align on the unmistakable biblical clarity around sex trafficking and sexual abuse, for instance.
3. YES…,I believe you are fully convinced of your biblical interpretations.
4. YES…,I believe you need to follow Christian convictions. To do otherwise is unfaithful discipleship.
5. YES…,I believe you are aiming to love as best you know from your biblical interpretations and Christian convictions.
6. YES…,I choose to believe you when you say you are not operating out of homophobia or fear. I have continually chosen not to say you (or others like you) are operating out of fear, as I choose to trust your words rather than trust any assumed motivation for your actions.
7. YES…,I understand your concern about deeper and longer-term implications of the debate we are having right now.
a. One concern you mention is the ‘trajectory of denominations.’ I hear you – though I am interested in stats about Canadian denominations (the ones you mention are all exclusively US-based; and an ELCIC pastor yesterday simply noted that the ‘local option’ is working quite well for them).
b. A second concern you mention is the ‘preponderance of non-scriptural arguments put forth against the conclusions of the Human Sexuality Report.’ I would LOVE to have a biblical, theological and confessional conversation – so I understand your concern. At the same time, I think many of us fully understood that the HSR was likely to come back with a traditional conclusion (look at the committee make-up); but many of us understood that it was ok to ‘respectfully disagree’ with such decisions of synod (as many do with climate care conclusions). So for us, the big surprise was the ‘confessional status’ conclusion, its binding nature, and the result that we would be excluded from holding office in the CRCNA. Perhaps it helps, then, for you to understand that many of us didn’t feel we needed to show our biblical work upfront, as we understand that the HSR was very helpful for giving biblical rooting for the majority position in the CRCNA. In a similar way, not many have given biblical arguments back when climate care conclusions were expressed, because many concerns were more about practical matters.
8. We do not align. Your reading of Scripture has brought you to some very specific conclusions about same-sex marriage where you believe Scripture teaches ‘with unmistakable clarity.’ I do not agree with your Scriptural interpretations. And would LOVE the CRC to have that biblical, theological and confessional conversation much more openly, honestly, and without all the ‘threats’ which you yourself name in your article (loss of job, family without paycheck, etc). These threats have been very real ‘wrenches’ in my situation because of our classis.
9. So we need good, hearty biblical conversation. More than anything in the CRCNA, right now, that’s what I want. Can we do this? Can we give space to those with whom we disagree to deeply articulate their biblical, theological, and confessional conclusions? Can we name out loud that – as we do this hard work – it will probably mean that we cannot end up in the same denomination, but that we will honour one another as we have this hearty biblical conversation, and then we will also work to honour one another as we (likely) find ourselves needing to be in separate covenant communities – in order for everyone to find a fitting covenant home for their biblical convictions?
10. How would a CRC minister affirm same-sex marriage in a biblical, theological and confessional way? To have a hearty, open, honest conversation, I think those who are not ‘affirming’ of same-sex marriage need to be able to understand how those who are ‘affirming’ of same-sex marriage would make their case. Only then, can we actually talk to one another – rather than talking loudly, while actually missing one another. In my opinion, many of the Abide articles on this website are very articulate – but they are not speaking about the CRC ‘affirming’ folks that I know. And they are certainly not discussing the BEST biblical, theological and confessional case for affirming same-sex marriage. So I don’t see those articles as helpful for our dialogue. I have spoken in person, for instance, with Pastor Lora Copley about her articles. On CRC-Voices, they have a phrase for that: “Let’s not ‘straw-man’ the other’s position, but ‘steel-man’ the other’s position.” This is what Herman Bavink was known for – ‘he honoured his opponents. He always painted them in the strongest colors—he gave such a sympathetic portrayal that you would think it was his own position.”
Paul, in response to 7. b., I think this is a poor argument. Even if it was the case, if the Affirming side had their whole theological/Biblical arguments and reasoning, but were just holding back in 2022, they certainly could have sent them in 2023, or even as confessional revision gravamen in 2024? The Reformed Journal recently published a piece trying to make the affirming case. I didn't bother commenting, because there was very little new there, and nothing I found compelling. Numerous affirming books have been written. Numerous denominations have had this same battle. Where are these super winning arguments? I have heard many of the arguments. I had breakfast with 3 GRE Elders this morning, and they tried to lay out their side once again. I've read and listened to what the affirming side has put forth, and like Craig said, especially reading the anti-HSR overtures in 2023, they made the same case over and over again, and it is not compelling, nor in line with reformed Biblical interpretation in my estimation. The Affirming side of the visible church has been making their case for 20+ years, and what do they have to show for it?
Just to be honest, I don't think 7.b. was me trying to put forward an argument or even defend that behaviour. It was only to help Craig understand what he is experiencing. In Craig's article, he seemed to be naming that there is so little biblical conversation from the 'affirming' side. I was trying to help Craig understand why, in my opinion, the biblical arguments have been delayed -- because the focus was primarily on 'can we even stay under these current decisions?'
The overall point of my long post is that we SHOULD have a good, hearty, open biblical conversation, and then find a way to wisely and gently divide, if that's what (unfortunately, in my opinion) needs to happen.
Pastor Craig - I wrote a response. It is long...the website told me "please type a shorter comment." I will try to divide this comment into multiple pieces. Hope it still works.
PART 1
Pastor Craig, this is Pastor Paul. I am one of those who ‘disagree with Synod’s decisions.’ I have had lots of painful interaction with folks connected to and followers of the Abide Project – having a letter saying I’m ‘deceived by Satan’ sent to my house from a church council in my classis, being dismissed as a ‘false teacher,’ a ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing,’ and more. But, as much as God enables me, I intend to trust the words of another when they say they want to listen and want to be understood. So I will try to respond to this article of yours. I will likely make mistakes in understanding you as well as mistakes articulating my perspective. Please be as gentle and gracious as you, by Christ’s Spirit, are able.
My Responses to Section 1 – a series of ‘YES…AND…’ (hope that’s ok)
1. YES…, I feel like I’m in danger of losing a home I love. I’ve been a pastor for 20 years, and a member since birth (48+ years), and I’ve never struggled with the basics of the Creeds or Confessions until this recent interpretation. In terms of LD 108, “Yes! Jesus is Lord of our whole lives, including our sexual lives!” Now we just need to wisely listen to Scripture with the Spirit to discern the way forward. Can I get an “Amen!”?
AND… what I love most about the CRC shines more through “Our World Belongs to God,” as I love our comprehensive “worldview” imagination as seen through the lens of the Gospel of Jesus’ incarnation, life, death and resurrection – and how as Lord of all creation, ours is an ‘all things’ story of a good creation, of our human culpability in the fall and the curse, and then a blessed redemption that goes ‘far as the curse is found.’ That story makes my heart sing – and I’ve felt like a member of a choir in the CRCNA. I first learned the vocational breadth of that song as an engineering student at Dordt. And while ‘worldview’ wasn’t a core conversation in my 7 years at Calvin Theological Seminary (it’s more of a CRC university conversation), I did take an elective with Dr. John Cooper on “Reformed worldview” and he said (I’ll pretend this is an exact quote), “Only the CRCNA could have produced ‘Our World Belongs to God.’ That all-encompassing Reformed worldview is a gift God gave us to steward for his body as we engage with his mission in the world.” So, loss – if I need to leave the CRCNA, what other choir that sings that beloved verse can I join?
2. YES…, I think the painful disagreements of the last years have thrown a wrench in a lot of places. I’m sorry the wrench in your congregation has been painful – and I have seen it be painful in many ‘mixed’ congregations (Canada has a lot of those, as you know). Many congregations, at least in Canada, wish that synod would not ‘reach down’ as strongly as it has. Yes! Articulate our traditional theology on human sexuality – but to make everyone have to agree with it has disturbed a lot of local congregations (as it would if every officebearer in the CRCNA had to agree on our synodical decisions on climate care, which also connects to the HC).
AND… as for me, personally, our local congregation (with two pastors who hold the traditional position on marriage; but with officebearers and members who have a whole range of thoughts), is navigating this fairly graciously as a local ‘mixed’ congregation – as both of our pastors and all of our council have said, “We will not let synodical decisions divide us.” We have had baptisms and professions of faith in three languages since then. And my own ministry as a pastor – a campus minister at UCalgary – is thriving, even as I continue to do as I have always done, articulate the CRCNA’s position on human sexuality openly while also naming that some within the CRCNA do not come to the same convictions. The places where I and our church are most involved in the ‘wrenches’ are in our classis (Alberta South & Saskatchewan) and in our synodical deliberations. But locally, our missional work of ‘reaching out, drawing in, creating a mosaic community’ (church vision) and ‘being a presence of Christ’s love in the world of higher education’ (ministry vision) are thriving.
3. YES…, I have grave concerns about how our synodical decisions are affecting ‘those who are gay or same-sex attracted.’ I have talked to many LGBT folks in the CRCNA – folks whose convictions are across the whole spectrum; not one of them yet has said, “The CRCNA and Synod are doing a great job of working through this!” (Yes, I’m sure I or you could find someone who would say that – but my take is that a large majority of LGBT folks in the CRCNA have said that we have not really listened to them in this conversation – this seems verified in the agenda for Synod 2022.)
AND… I have equally significant concern about how we are reading Scripture and engaging this conversation in the CRCNA. Your paragraphs do not seem to name what I think is the most important thing you can understand about me – and probably many more like me. We land where we land because of our engagement with Scripture and the Spirit. You say “a big piece of what motivates you in this debate is the pain and neglect of vulnerable people…” Yes, for many. For me, I am the pastor to many LGBT folks – and it seems to be going well as I invite them into an engagement with Jesus, with Scripture, with Christian community (note: it is true that I do not follow the pastoral care advice of the HSR). What isn’t going well, in my opinion, is our CRC conversations – where my concern is primarily about Reformed hermeneutics of Scripture, Reformed systematic and practical theology, and how we engage with one another when we differ on where those lead us. Thus, much of my work in those fields has been about the biblical and theological problems of the HSR and un-Christian posture that seems to be a hallmark of our synodical and CRCNA dialogue (calling other pastors ‘anti-Christ’, ‘false teacher,’ ‘wolf in sheep’s clothing’, etc are examples I take seriously). It feels like we have been focused on making potent decisions, rather than gathering in ways that promote discernment as a community – discernment which might lead to going separate ways, but would likely allow us to conclude that together, in mutual submission and mutual respect.