Out of Context – for Good and for Bad

As I began thinking about what I would do if given the opportunity to vote on the Belhar, I spent a lot of time thinking about what a “confession” is. Of course, there are a lot of ways to define a confession, and I wasn't a delegate at Synod, so however I would have voted is entirely irrelevant. However, the question I kept coming back to was the question of context.

It sounds awful, but bear with me. One of the beautiful things about the scriptures is that they can be used outside of their original context. That doesn't mean that all out of context interpretations are appropriate, but it does suggest that some out of context interpretations are. I don't think that's even remotely controversial. Obviously we live in a completely different context than those the scriptures were written in. If we are to believe that they still speak to us and make God's will known to us, we have to believe that it's possible to apply them, in some way, outside of their original context.

The standards are obviously not scripture; they do not hold the authority of scripture; they are not inspired in the same way as the scriptures. That said, one of the beauties of the standards is that they too, in some ways, can be interpreted and applied outside of their original context. Ministers in the RCA affirm that they are “historic” and “faithful” expressions of God's will. “Historic” means that they have an original context different from our own; “faithful” suggests that they, to some degree can be interpreted outside of that original context.

As I've thought about the Belhar, then, I've found myself wondering which of two, very different, categories it fits in: (1) is it a powerful document bound to it's original time and context (and thus not suitable as a confession), or (2) is it a powerful document able to speak in some way outside it's original time and context (and thus appropriate for adoption as a confession).

In the end, I believe it's the latter. Which means, of course, that I believe the Synod made a wise and discerning decision in approving it, and celebrate that the years of study have led us to this place.

Certainly some applications outside of South African apartheid are appropriate, certainly others aren't. The flurry of activity on the Church Herald Blogs, over the past week, has seen a myriad of posts referencing the Belhar (in my opinion) under both categories. The question, then, becomes how it can appropriately be applied outside of its original context.

One of the problems we have, in answering this question, is that as important as it is, we haven't done a very good job at answering it with our other three standards. Nor, even, have we done an acceptable job answering it in the case of the scriptures. Again, it's worth noting that the scriptures and the standards are unquestionably on different levels – yet the question is similarly important.

I can't provide a full hermeneutic on the standards, but let me at least suggest the following:

(1) In order to understand how the standards (and therefore, the Belhar) can be applied outside of their original context, we need to know as much about their original context as possible and what the differences are between their original context and a contemporary one.

(2) The first step in interpreting the standards, is to figure out what they meant to their original audience in their original context.

(3) The second step in interpreting the standards, is to ensure that the “contemporary” (i.e. out of context) interpretation is consistent with the scriptures. (As a standard, I already believe the original interpretation is consistent with the scriptures).

(4) The third step in interpreting the standards, is to ensure that the contemporary interpretation is consistent with original interpretation (i.e. it's inappropriate to try to get the standards to say something inconsistent with what they were intended to say, even though it is appropriate to carefully apply them to different contexts than originally intended.)

OK, it isn't a fully functional hermeneutic... but maybe it's a start.

Thoughts?

Grace and Peace,

  `tim

No, you don't get your way this time...

(Cross posted by permission from my personal blog at Credo ↔ Oratio.)

Every year, as Synod approaches, I talk to the congregation I pastor about what's on the docket and what kinds of things the delegates are going to be talking about, celebrating, learning, etc. Some congregations roll their eyes at the idea of General Synod, but over the past nine years, I think Dunningville has come to understand that Synod plays an important role in the local church as well as the denomination.

Yesterday, shortly before our morning service when I gathered with our Elders to pray, we were talking about Synod and how it can be both extremely fun and extremely frustrating. It's true. If you've never been to a Synod, there are few gatherings of the church that are more fun. Hundreds of people from across the US (and a handful of overseas missionaries flown in to spice things up) are gathered in a single place to pray, worship, deliberate, etc. Good conversations happen over coffee times, meal-times, and - in some cases - late into the night. Good discernment and work is done during advisory committee meetings, plenary sessions and other formal gatherings. All of this can be exceedingly fun.. yes... fun.

Synod, however, can also be frustrating - intensely frustrating! Sometimes it boggles my mind to watch people talk past each other and to see people stand up to speak on things that really have nothing to do with the topic at hand. Sometimes people are so busy crafting their arguments that they don't even notice that the conversation has moved on, or even more humorously, that someone has already made their point (sometimes even more effectively than they did). The other frustrating thing about Synod is that although you are almost always guaranteed to go home after it's all done and be very happy with some of the decisions, you are also - regardless of your theological, doctrinal or social positions - often equally as unhappy with others.

That's where the conversation before church yesterday really caught my attention. Just before we bowed our heads, one of our elders turned to me and said something to the effect of: Synod is good because it reminds people that they don't always get their way.

Bingo!

Of all the wonderful things that happen at Synod, perhaps the most important is that people are given a bigger view of the church - that they're invited (forced?) to recognize that their preferences, their way of doing things, their experience of the faith, and their likes and dislikes aren't what it's all about. Synod reminds people that we're about something bigger than merely remaking the Church (denominational and even universal) in our own image.

Just one more reason that, in the nine years I've been at Dunningville, I can honestly say every Consistory I've worked with has been a blessing. I hope others of you are as fortunate!

Grace and peace,
`tim

Here's an idea (inspired by the Commissioned Pastor concept)

I've essentially lost the argument in Zeeland Classis, I think.  By the end of the year, if not the end of June, it is possible that Zeeland Classis will have taken upon itself the privilege of ordaining Elders for the position of Commissioned Pastor.  My concern, as I've already noted quite publicly, is that it sidesteps our whole polity - Congregations elect (call) and ordain elders through a specific process, not Classes. 

Having said that, if the RCA is going to ignore the means by which we traditionally have called, prepared and supervised people for the office of Elder, why not Deacon, Minister and Professor of theology?

How about we create Deacons for our Small groups or our Classes?  The office of Deacon is a good office, why should only congregations get to elect (call) and ordain them?

Can we create a regional minister office?  In other words, set up a program (outside of the normal ordination track) by which the Regional Synod ordains people the office of Minister of Word and Sacrament?  Or maybe we could go the CRC route and make ministers denominationally?  This way the Regional Synod or Denomination could "step in" where local Classes might have not be willing to ordain someone and make sure they nonetheless get ordained.... After all, if they seem fit why not?  Quite frankly, there are some Classes I don't agree with, why should the people who live there "bounds" be punished by their local standards and the experiences of those who know them best?

Perhaps it could go the other way too... Classes could make people Professors of Theology... or Regional Synods maybe?  I realize this is a little more awkward, but if a Classis made a Professor of Theology, that person wouldn't have to be accountable to the Synod.  S/he could simply choose a Classis they agree with and not worry about the larger church...

Ok, perhaps all of that is a bit "tongue in cheek" (or maybe even a smidge sarcastic), but seriously... I believe there is a certain wisdom in the traditional separation of powers and that side-stepping them is problematic (although certainly convenient in some situations).  In the end, though I don't ever buy "the ends justify the means" argument.

How about you?

Grace and Peace,

  `tim

Knitters, Crocheters and other Fiber Enthusiasts

Are you attending Synod this year?

Do you like to Knit, Crochet, or otherwise fiddle with fiber?

Here is (to reference Justin M.'s suggestion) an excellent opportunity to "play" with one another.  On Sunday afternoon (during one of the empty times of the Synod Schedule), I'm planning an open house/get-to-gether for anyone interested in meeting at one of our local yarn shops.

It's within walking distance of campus; snacks will be provided, and it's free!

Information at: http://tenclay.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/05/synod-fiber-fans.pdf

Entirely non-theological, non-doctrinal, non-biblical, and pretty much non-everything-this-blog-is-about, but I hope to see some of you there.

Contact me if you have any questions (phone and e-mail both on the above .pdf); otherwise, you can always find me at the Seminarian Seminar Tables once Synod begins.

Grace and Peace,

  `tim

Adiaphora... yes or no?

There have been a handful of discussions on the Church Herald Blogs lately that have raised a basic question for me: Is there such a thing in the RCA as adiaphora?

From Wikipedia:

Adiaphoron (plural: adiaphora from the Greekἀδιάφορα "indifferent things")...in Christianity refer to matters not regarded as essential to faith but nevertheless as permissible for Christians or allowed in church. What is specifically considered adiaphora depends on the specific theology in view.

I guess, more directly, the question I'm asking is how do we define what is adiaphora and what isn't?  Obviously we hold that somethings are adiaphora (not everything we believe is on the same "level" of importance).  But how do we determine it?

As we have seen, some people consider a particular position on women in ministry fundamental... others not.  Some consider a particular position on homosexuality fundamental... others not.  There is at least one denomination that uses formal church discipline against ministers who don't preach that creation happened in seven, 24-hour days... obviously not true for the RCA. 

It's an important question, I think.  If we don't have a clear understanding of what is fundamentally necessary and what isn't, we end up spending a lot of time arguing about things that really don't matter.  On the other hand, some things are worth dying for. 

Please don't give me your list of fundamentals or adiaphora, and please don't just say "I believe in the Bible" -- I don't mean to sound rude but neither one is helpful to the discussion.  Instead, how do you make that distinction?  Who do you turn to for help making such decisions?  Are there different lists of "unbendables" for ministers? Elders? Deacons? Members? Adherents?

etc. etc....

Grace and Peace,

  `tim