9.22.2005

RCA dialogue: year 1 of 3...

So Ann wants to know why I'm butting in to New York classis' business, in the comments on the RCA conflict post below.

Well, it's like this.

How is it that many want to remove the conscience clause from our Constitution?
That would be butting in to every classis, consistory and conscience, and judging on a pretty hot issue, much like homosexuality. How is that justified? Only by common consensus that women must be allowed to be ordained, with no objections.

So how is my intervention justified? Only by common consensus that homosexual practice is wrong, and not to be endorsed by the church. Like Jesus with the adulterous woman, we shame those who shame homosexuals, but we then turn to her and say, "Don't do this anymore."

How is my intervention justified? The same way Paul's was in 1 Corinthians 5, and on the same sort of issue:

1It is actually reported that there is sexual immorality among you, and such sexual immorality as is not even named among the Gentiles—that a man has his father’s wife! 2 And you are puffed up, and have not rather mourned, that he who has done this deed might be taken away from among you. 3 For I indeed, as absent in body but present in spirit, have already judged (as though I were present) him who has so done this deed. 4 In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, when you are gathered together, along with my spirit, with the power of our Lord Jesus Christ, 5 deliver such a one to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, that his spirit may be saved in the day of the Lord Jesus.
6 Your glorying is not good. Do you not know that a little leaven leavens the whole lump? 7 Therefore purge out the old leaven, that you may be a new lump, since you truly are unleavened. For indeed Christ, our Passover, was sacrificed for us. 8 Therefore let us keep the feast, not with old leaven, nor with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth.
9 I wrote to you in my epistle not to keep company with sexually immoral people. 10 Yet I certainly did not mean with the sexually immoral people of this world, or with the covetous, or extortioners, or idolaters, since then you would need to go out of the world. 11 But now I have written to you not to keep company with anyone named a brother, who is sexually immoral, or covetous, or an idolater, or a reviler, or a drunkard, or an extortioner— not even to eat with such a person.
12 For what have I to do with judging those also who are outside? Do you not judge those who are inside? 13 But those who are outside God judges. Therefore “put away from yourselves the evil person.”

Notice Paul wasn't there. He wasn't part of Corinth classis. He just heard the news, and judged the sinner on the spot, gives his reasons why, and implies that we should likewise judge, for the sake of the purity of the church.



Of course, we don't have the common consensus I spoke of earlier to carry out this judgment fully. That's my frustration and why I speak. But a fairly large majority in the RCA believes this way, I think.

I expect a Christian denomination to put fidelity to God's Word above "keeping us together" when we don't have consensus where Scripture speaks. We are simply worried about losing a large chunk of people (a vocal minority) if we take a stand. I say let them go, if they insist on making such a hubbub about such a controversial issue where the majority is against them. Let them say, "The RCA left us; we didn't leave the RCA." Fine. Just let them go. And do it by defining who we are and what we believe.

Since the states didn't take a strong stand against slavery 150 years ago, the Federal government had to.
Since the classes aren't staying true to Scripture on this matter, synod will have to use its authority to ensure such fidelity.

This is why I speak up. We can try to assert federalist governmental principles, to promote "non-intervention," to keep this leaven from being removed, and it will probably work. (I find it interesting that a polity assertion is being made - one which I completely understand and respect - to avoid a theological issue). But it does not make for the unity, purity or peace of the Church of Jesus Christ. Purity and peace reasons should be obvious. The unity argument assumes that unity derives from common commitment to conforming our lives to God's Word, not vice versa.

15 comments:

  1. What worries me in both of the responses to your post is the degree of compartmentalizing going on viz. the nature of the church. Ann seems to imply that each classis is a semi-autonomous body. This is obviously not the case, neither in reality nor in the BCO, but it serves her purposes. As a denomination, I believe we need to be looking at each other very carefully and often, at every level. This is to hold each other accountable to the covenants we have made together before God. This is why I value your comments on my blog postings. They push me out of my rhetoric into real reflection.

    For me, the church has spoken on this issue, and our 30+ years of discussion, in the face of great social change, has resulted in a fairly unequivocal answer: sexual relations outside of a marriage between a man and a woman are sinful. To deviate from this scriptural and confessional norm is to invite anarchy into the church (cf. Robert Jenson's "Systematic Theology" v.2, p.91).

    I believe it essential to our unity and fidelity as a church, to be our brother's keeper, and that means our classis' keeper as well. If New York classis would permit the ordination of an openly gay person, they would violate that unity and fidelity, and truly become an autonomous entity. I am as troubled by some of the actions of classes in the Far West, who dedicate children instead of baptizing them, as I am regarding NY. I would hope other classes would serve my classis of Passaic Valley in holding us accountable where we stumble.

    (I think what NY classis is doing to Ann, however, is wrong. Either ordain her or counsel her to seek ordination in another communion. Holding people in limbo is not good church polity, nor reflective of a commitment to the welfare of a person.)

    ReplyDelete
  2. Tim,
    I suppose we need to then define terms. Autonomy is the freedom to act independently of a higher authority, i.e., apart from the oversight of another. The OED defines it as "Independence, freedom from external control or influence." A classis is not structured in such a way. In fact, it is made up of men and women who have made sacred vows to the mission, doctrine, and program of the RCA. It is answerable for its actions to its Regional Synod, to the General Synod, and to the confraternity of other classes which make up the denomination. We are not "confederate states." Parity is not a license for independent action which violates the constitution the classis has vowed to uphold. To do so, as I have said, is to cease to be faithful to church, and in effect, to be in schism.

    I would be interested in your view of autonomy or semi-autonomy.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Homosexuality may or may not rise to Status Confessionis, but the inspiration and authority of Holy Scripture certainly does (cf. Belgic Confession, Art.7).

    I also believe that General Synod can certainly tell a classis whom it may ordain, and has done so in the past. I cite as an example, the ordination of women. There is also the judicial element of our polity, where the higher assemblies have the right and obligation to overrule decisions made by classes and congregations, and even individuals (e.g., Kansfield).

    By the way, I am enjoying this exchange immensely. Thanks!

    ReplyDelete
  4. Hi Steve (and all),
    I posted some thoughts on my blog at http://yourcomfort.blogspot.com/2005/09/slavery-segregation-and-what-to-do.html. I wanted to include a picture, and couldn't figure out how to do so in the comments section. I apologize for having to link you over there for it.

    In Christ,
    Ann

    ReplyDelete
  5. I am siding with Steve here, especially viz. the issue of slavery. The Bible speaks implicitly and explicitly that slavery is a moral evil. As a preface to the Law we read, "I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage." Bondage in Scripture is never viewed as anything other than an evil. Hence the manumission commandments in the Torah, the letter of Philemon, etc. The texts which Ann cite are not in defense of slavery, but counsels to Christians living in a system which they could not overthrow, and in light of strong eschatological expectations. The Bible does, however, speak condemnation against non-heterosexual relations, and does so in multiple places in both testaments. I also dislike being lumped in with segregationists, ante-bellum racists, and supporters of apartheid. Because one stands with the Bible's teaching on sexuality, does not mean one stands with past misinterpretations and the misuse of scripture. Such statements are, in effect, ad hominem arguments which only divide the body further.

    Tim, human sexuality is a huge issue, which touches the deepest parts of us, so it's never going to be a minor issue - that's a bit naive. The advocacy of gay clergy and Christian acceptance/inclusion of the gay lifestyle threatens not only the biblical concepts of family, sexual purity, and ministerial holiness, it threatens to undermine, and even extinguish the entire concept of biblical authority. If we have no canon, we have no revelation. If we have no revelation, we have no objective grounds for moral decision-making. The result is chaos, and if we accept the whole counsel of God, the result is judgment. There is more at stake here than people's sexual preferences. The church is God's, and He has revealed his will concerning its nature. For those who are unhappy with that revelation, there are numerous options to pursue, options which will not result in the destruction of what the vast majority of the church at all times in all places has held to be true.

    ReplyDelete
  6. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  7. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Tim,
    Tim, I am confused. I read my post again, and was referring to Ann's blog not you. I did not intend to make any assumption regarding your position. Sorry.

    As for the slippery slope, I actually consider it more of a sheer cliff. If one says that a clear NT teaching is no longer authoritative for the church, then it would seem we have lost the scripture. Does not Paul say, "All scripture is given by inspiration..."? Instead of the image of a slope or a cliff, I prefer that of a thread in a tapestry. Pull it out and the whole thing unravels.

    ReplyDelete
  9. I don't have much time, but wanted to write because some assumptions have been made about my views and I want to make sure that you're dealing with what I really believe verses what you think I may believe.

    #1. I do not see the issue of including LBGT folks in the life and ministry of the church as being the crucial issue facing God's church at this time.

    To prove my point, I have never preached a sermon about homosexuality. And for those who might think that the congregation I serve is full of gay folks - you're wrong. The biggest segment of our growth has come from families with moms and dads and kids. Our growth, though, demonstrates that there are lots of people seeking a relationship with God who would prefer to worship in a church that welcomes all people.

    #2. I have never said that anyone should have to leave the RCA over their views on LBGT folks. Quite the contrary, I believe that there is room enough for all view points on the issue. But, it seems that Steve is saying that there is not room enough for both his view of the Bible and my view of the Bible. Is this the case Steve?

    Lastly, none of you has actually met me or spoke with me or knows me, so I'd ask you not to make assumptions about me or my views. If you would actually get to know me, I think you might be surprised by who I am and what I think.

    In Christ,
    Ann

    ReplyDelete
  10. Scott,
    Yes, I see no disparity between being married to another woman and seeking ordination.

    But, where I disagree is that this raises "the question in the whole church's heart as to the propriety of this."

    The "whole church" does not agree with you, Scott. There are many in the RCA who do believe that gay people should have the ability to be married and to be ordained in service of Christ's church. I'll remind you again that 1/3 of the delegates to Synod agreed with my father.

    What do you mean by the comment "unless homosexual marriage works differently than heterosexual marriage?" I don't mean this as a trap, I just don't understand what you're saying and how it applies to ordination.

    ReplyDelete
  11. ACK!!

    Just a wee point here: Ann - Steve is not Scott! Neopuritan is Scott. I am Scott (Neopuritan from Ars Theologica). I've been conflated with other folks before (on RENew), with another person who made hurtful comments toward you Ann. So I don't want that to happen again.

    :)

    I hope that clears things up.

    F. Scott Petersen, (socialist)

    ReplyDelete
  12. Dear Scott (not Steve),
    Sorry for confusing you with Steve. I was running off to a meeting and got my men's-names-that-start-with-S confused. I apologize.

    And yes, I know that you've been confused for Scott N. before. But I work hard to keep the two of you separate (as best I'm able). I know what it's like to be confused with someone with whom you share a name so I apologize for the mistake.

    In Christ,
    Ann

    ReplyDelete
  13. Hi Steve,
    Keeping up with these comments is a little more than I can manage right now. But, I think this discussion is really good, and I'd like to address your two statements. Give me a day to two to write something up, and I'll post it on my blog (since I imagine that it'll be a little long for the comments section).

    How do you guys have enough time in your day to post comments and lead a congregation?

    All the best,
    Ann

    ReplyDelete
  14. My parishioners think I only work an hour a week, so I try not to disappoint them.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Good conversation. I've been out of town (at some RCA meetings), so I have had limited ability to contribute. Thanks to you all for your thoughtful posts. Blessings, RogueMonk.

    ReplyDelete