Kudos to The Church Herald

I have never been a cheerleader for the Church Herald.  I've read every issue since being ordained in 2002 and more often than not I have found at least one article to be frustrating and/or discouraging.  In fact, our church, even in the days of fully subsidized Heralds, opted to receive only a handful of magazines for the church lobby.  We simply didn't want all of our members reading the Church Herald and thinking "Wait a minute.  What kind of church have I just joined?  This is not what I've been hearing from the pulpit."  So even though I like the folks working at the Herald, I've never been a strong advocate for it.

But I have to admit, the Church Heraldis serving a purpose in our denomination.  It is working hard to let different voices in the RCA be heard.  I'm guessing that the powers that be at the Herald don't agree with a lot of what I write, and they probably wouldn't want to be a member at my church.  But yet, they've asked me to blog (and some others like me and some unlike me).  They've accepted writing projects I've submitted.  It can be frustrating to read what others write on their blogs or what others say in the Church Herald, but that's because some people in the RCA believe some wacky things (in my humble opinion of course). 

I'm not saying for a moment that the my view of the RCA has changed and that none of our differences matter, or even that all of them can realistically co-exist.  But in the midst of the RCA's theological free-for-all, the Church Herald is trying to let us hear from all sides.  I can appreciate that.  I'm sure the Heraldhas its boundaries too.  I don't know if they would publish a piece arguing against women's ordination (but maybe I should try submitting the article!).  But I give them a lot of credit for letting a thousands flowers bloom, or if not letting them bloom, then at least putting the different blooms under our noses. 

When I read official denominational publications I know what to expect.  Our Call will be touted.  Belhar will be strongly promoted.  Controversies will be eschewed.  Many fine stories will be shared.  I understand this approach too.  Our leaders are trying to use their resources to lead, not report and represent.  But I guess more and more I'm thankful for the Church Herald because they are willing to do the latter and not just the former.

Abortion and the Duty to Legislate Some Morality

A few posts ago, Justin asked a good question about when the government should legislate morality.  The question is complicated because there is no "consistent" position.  Everyone, except anarchists, wants the government to legislate some morality, and everyone, except full blown recontructionists, want the government to stay out of some issues.  For example I want the government to prohibit stealing but I don't want the government to prohibit the worship of Shiva, even though I think both are grave sins.

Justin mentioned three issues: abortion, homosexuality, and economic redistribution.  Let me just comment on the first.

The issue is not whether a woman has a right to choose what do with her body or whether a woman might suffer greatly if she brings the child to term.  The question is whether "the unborn entity, from the moment of conception, is a full-fledged member of the human community", to quote Francis Beckwith.  If the fetus is a human person, then abortion is prima facie morally wrong, and a moral wrong that ought to prohibited by the state.  If the fetus is not a member of the human community, then we can debate whether the mother can terminate the pregnancy or not.  But this would be to conclude that the unborn child is nothing much more than a mass of flaking skin cells.   We don't talk about a man's right to choose to shoot his wife, or the right of a parent to suffocate her 4 year old, or the right of a 55 year old to push his aging mother in front of a car.  These are not rights because in each case an innocent human person is being killed.  If the fetus is a human person, then how can abortion be a right?

Despite the rhetoric, abortion is not just one issue among many.  It is different.  No one has some out in favor of hurting the poor.  No one runs on a plank of trashing the environment.  No one advocates the killing of innocent Iraqis.  You may think that the policies you oppose are tantamount to these things.  You may even think the politicians you oppose secretly want these things.  But no one is arguing for them.  The debate, at least ostensibly, is about which policies best help the poor, or best preserve peace, or best care for creation.

Abortion is different.  Here we have some saying "unborn life should be protected."  Others are saying "unborn life should not be protected."  The debate is about ends, not means.  Millions argue for the right to terminate the unborn.  Perhaps they think the fetus is not a human person.  Perhaps they think the human person does not have a right to live.  Perhaps they haven't thought through the issue very carefully.

I know there are Christians who support the right to abortion, but, honestly, I cannot see how.  My wife and I had our 20 week ultrasound on Thursday for our fourth child.  We had an earlier ultrasound around 12 weeks because we feared a miscarriage.  At both ultrasounds, and every other one we've had, we've seen a little child rolling around, kicking its legs, moving its head, bending its arms.  We've seen the baby's spine, 10 fingers and 10 toes, and a little heart racing.  If my wife went into preterm labor right now, heaven forbid, our doctors and hospital would do everything to save the life of our child.  And if the child died, heaven forbid, the nurses and doctors and staff would mourn with us, and no one reading this blog would think such a loss to be a small grief. 

And yet, many Americans, and not a few professing Christians, would think nothing of ending this child's life on our own.  And others would think it a travesty not to have the "right" to do so.  Almost every state has fetal homicide laws for the prosecution of those who harm a child in the womb.  And yet, every state allows for abortion in all three trimesters for any reason.  It is a sad and terrible kind of blindness that sees no contradiction in praying for safe pregnancies while still defending the right to kill the child of that pregnancy. 

Either the unborn child is a human person or not.  And if the fetus is a human person, then it is has a right to live whether we want it to or not.  Which brings me to the main point: the government has no greater responsibility than protecting the lives of those who do not deserve to die.  When it comes to defending the unborn, I say legislate away, not to mention overturn Roe v. Wade.

The RCA Today: Who Are We (Part 2)

A Closer Look at the Ten: Winners and Losers

While all these groups (See Part 1) are present to varying degrees in the RCA. Not all feel equally welcome or equally “at the table.” Some groups, though they have discomfort with certain aspects of the denomination, largely feel at home in the RCA. Other groups are wondering whether they can continue ministering here at all.

I would argue that the clear winners in today’s RCA are those in the categories marked innovative, missional, or social justice. These three values are championed by our leadership and present in Our Call. If you are looking for a denomination that talks a lot about new wineskins, getting out into our communities, and doing justice in the world, then the RCA is a home for you. Lesser winners in today’s RCA are "ecumenical", "evangelical", and "emergent".

The biggest loser is the category “traditional.” This is not the same as saying that the RCA no longer cares for our tradition (though some would say that). By “traditional” I mean old songs, old liturgies, and old ways of organizing church. Lesser losers are "conservative", "Reformed", and "liberal". In other words, if you have a strong opinion about what we should believe, the RCA often feels like an unwelcoming place.

Current values in the RCA include growth, multiplication, and doing things in and for the community. Non-values include theological definition, tradition, and non-growing/non-planting churches.


Is There a Way Forward?

Of course, one way forward is for my group to be recognized as truer to Scripture and more pleasing to God. And while I do have a “dog in this fight”, fighting till death do us part is not the only way forward.

Is it possible for the RCA to move forward in unity, with a shared purpose, vision, and theology? Honestly, I'm not sure, but here’s six suggestions that might help.

1. Admit we are not united. There’s no use in pretending that we are on the same page. We have radically different views of mission, church life, Scripture, ethics, and even God. Of course, some may argue that this is our great strength–our beautiful diversity! But to celebrate diversity of color or race is one thing, to celebrate diversity of God, ethics, and mission is quite another. Some may argue that we should all just get along anyway, but this is to assume that theological definition is unimportant and the things we disagree on are mere preferences. This is one position to take with regard to our differences, but I do not think it does justice to the depth of our disagreement.

2. Settle the homosexuality issue. We need to come down in one of three places: (1) homosexuality is sinful and while we want to graciously help those struggling with this sin, we can in no way condone nor those who promote it; (2) homosexuality is blessed by God and those who oppose it are commiting a grave injustice against gays and lesbians; (3) we will tolerate different opinions on homosexuality in this denomination.

In other words, we need to say “yes” to homosexual behavior, “no it’s not ok”, or “it doesn’t really matter.” Saying any of the three, at this point, is better than saying nothing at all, or saying a dozen things with endless nuance and ambiguity. The issue of homosexuality will not go away so long as we make inoffensiveness a greater goal than clarity. If we have a position–yes, no, or who cares–and state it clearly, some people will be gravely upset, but at least they’ll know where the RCA stands. Then they can decide if the RCA is still the place for them.

4. Clarify the role of our doctrinal Standards, our polity, and our liturgy. The Standards clearly teach infant baptism, penal substitution, unconditional election, limited atonement, the bondage of the will, and the perfection of the Scriptures. Do our pastors need to believe and teach these also? How much “wiggle room” do we get? The same goes for polity and liturgy. Where can we be flexible? Where should our churches look the same? Where can we differ?  What makes an RCA church RCA?

5. Our denominational leaders need to communicate with more transparency, less jargon and less bureaucratic-speak. Put a ban on words like “dialogue”, “listen”, and “conversation”; and phrases like “our polity is a gift to the church” and slogans like “ecumenical and evangelical” and “missional and reformed.” We need to know what these words actually mean before we can talk about them meaningfully.  We appreciate leaders who listen, but we also need to know what our leaders believe on the important issues facing our denomination.

6. After achieving this clarity in our denominational tree, allow for self-pruning. If people don’t like who we are anymore, then let them leave peacefully. Wish the leavers well. Let them have their building and property. The RCA that is left can move forward, smaller probably, but more united, more energized, and less distracted. Real spiritual unity must go deeper than a shared conviction that more people, more churches, and more mission are good things.

I don't mean for this to be an especially bleak outlook on the RCA.   But I hope it is honest.  For my part, I pray that the Lord inspires new mission work where people are loved and the gospel is preached.  I pray that new churches are planted where the cross of Christ is cherished.  I pray for the Lord to change hearts and brings the RCA into greater conformity with the word of God as summarized in our creeds and confessions.  But , as I pray for these, I'd also be happy with simple clarity.

The RCA Today: Who Are We (Part 1)

It’s no secret that the Reformed Church in America is a very diverse body. By diversity, I’m not thinking of the ethnic and racial kind, though by God’s grace we are growing in this diversity too. I’m thinking of the diversity that makes us a mess of conflicting beliefs, styles, and purposes. Some of the disagreements are shallow and minor, but others are deep and profound.

The divide in the RCA is not really a divide; it’s more like buckshot. We are all over the map, split not into simply conservative and liberal sides, but scattered into a whole host of competing, and at times irreconcilable, ideologies and assumptions.


RCA Taxonomy

By my reckoning, there are at least ten different affinity groups at work in the RCA, some well organized, some entrenched in our institutions, and some struggling for survival, but all present in our little denomination. There are five major categories (Liberal, Conservative, Missional, Reformed, Social Justice) further defined by five minor categories (Innovative, Traditional, Emergent, Evangelical, Ecumenical).

I don’t pretend to know the mind of everyone or every group in the RCA. And certainly some people fit multiple categories and others may fit none. The following categories are simply generalizations. But since we can’t know 300,000 people personally, we must generalize at times. In describing the categories, I’ve tried to be as evenhanded as possible, even though I resonate with some more than others.

Liberal Innovative (LBI) - Theologically and politically liberal, but open/indifferent to new structures and new styles. More urban; mostly eastern.

Liberal Traditional (LBT) - Theologically and politically liberal, but very concerned about adherence to our liturgy and constitution. More rural and small town, but some urban; mostly eastern.

Conservative Innovative (CNI) - Theologically conservative on paper, but often (not always though) a-theological in practice. Influenced by Willow Creek, Saddleback, and Leadership Network (through Reggie McNeal and others).

Conservative Traditional (CNT) - Theologically conservative, sometimes by conscious choice, often by default. Not as concerned about liturgy and BCO as LBTs, but reluctant to jettison hymns and traditional ways of doing church.

Missional Emergent (MEM) - Passionate about community involvement and mercy ministry. Frustrated with old ways of doing church. Influenced by the neo-liberalism of emergent leaders like Brian McLaren, Leonard Sweet, and Stan Grenz, and the eminent New Testament scholar N.T. Wright.

Missional Evangelical (MEV) - Share similar passions with MEM, but would emphasize evangelism as well. Believes the church must change or die. Excited about Our Call. Conservative theologically, sometimes consciously, other times by default. Strong in California and Great Lakes.

Reformed Ecumenical (REC) - Concerned that we understand and appreciate our Reformed heritage. Knowledgeable about theology and champions of loving God with our minds. Draws more from the Neo-Orthodox and mainline Reformed tradition. Still supportive of mainline ecumenical ventures and structures. Often teach in seminaries and colleges.

Reformed Evangelical (REV) - Share the RECs concern for theology, but much more conservative. Influenced by Calvin, Puritans, and Neo-Reformed writings of Piper, Sproul, Packer, Wells, etc. Sometimes “old school” and very traditional, but just as often part of the young, restless, and reformed movement. Often complementarian on gender roles.

Social Justice Ecumenical (SEC) - Politically liberal. Theology takes a back seat to political organization and alliance. Passionate supporters of President Obama. Excited about old and new ecumenical efforts, so long as they address issues of poverty, racism, consumerism, and militarism.

Social Justice Evangelical (SEV) - Politically mixed. Share many of the same concerns as SECs, but still oppose abortion and (maybe) gay marriage. They are also more concerned about evangelism and less interested in participating in institutions like the National Council of Churches and World Council of Churches.

Up Next: Taking a Closer Look at the Ten

WWJD and Interfaith Services

At the risk of cementing my reputation as the gadfly conservative around here, I feel compelled, in light of post-inauguration festivities, to raise the issue of interfaith services (the service is described here: http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/01/the-56th-presid.html).

Imagine it's early in the first century, in and around Palestine.  A new emperpor, or local governor, has come to power.  As a nod to the diverse religious traditions of the land, there is a prayer service to the gods on behalf of the new leader.  In the mix we find worshipers of Asclepius, priests of the Artemis cult, believers in Hermes, leaders in the local fertility cult.  Would we find any Jews there?  What about Jesus?

Can you imagine Jesus participating in such an event?  With the warnings of Israel's history and the seriousness of the Ten Commandments, is there any way Jesus, would possibly agree to participate in such a ceremony?  We aren't talking about giving taxes to Caesar, or praying for the Emperor in synagogue worship, or living out your faith in public.  We are talking about a worship service where the "God" worshipped is the "God of our many understandings", to borrow a recent phrase. and the tacit assumption is that we can all share in genuine spiritual fellowship.  In Revelation, as best as we can tell the context, Jesus rebuked several of the churches for simply going along with ritual meals to various gods in the guilds of the day.  What would he say about sharing a worship service?  Would the Apostle Paul, who warned his churches of syncretism and idolatry so often, consider for even a moment participating in a worship service where several different gods were invoked?  What accord has Christ with Belial?  What agreement has the temple of God with idols? (2 Cor. 6:14-7:1)

I am dismayed that our General Secretary had a prominent role in Wednesday's service at the National Cathedral in Washington D.C.  An honor to be invited?  Perhaps.  But not honoring to the Lord.