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

Forum on Women in Ministry at WTS (Part II)

This is the second installment of my notes on an “RCA Advocacy Forum on Women in Leadership” that took place today at Western Seminary. (Here’s the first installment).

I offer the following notes with a loud and clear caveat: Jim is brilliant; I am not a particularly good note-taker. Although I'm reasonably confident in my ability to represent a typical lecture's content, Jim's presentation was more complex. The good news? He is putting together web and video resources with much of the same information and hopes to have it available by the end of the summer!

Morning Session #2:

Rev. Dr. Jim Brownson: Biblical Overview

First, a truism: We do not come to scripture as blank slates. We have (to use my own word) “baggage” - experiences, preferences, etc. that help and hinder our interpretation of the scriptures.

Importantly, as Reformed Christians, the question we need to ask is not whether to be biblical but how to be biblical. There are three keys to keep in mind

1. We look at the totality of scripture, not just proof texts (and use easier passages to help us interpret the more difficult ones).

2. We make a distinction between fundamental gospel truth and cultural issues. (Obviously! There are a lot of cultural things that we automatically deal with when we interpret the scriptures. Unfortunately not everything is quite as easy to deal with as exchanging handshakes for holy kisses!)

3. The Bible is authoritative to us because it has led us to Christ and continues to inform us about what life in Christ is supposed to look like (not because we have determined that it should be authoritative or someone else has told us it is).

General observations (things pretty much everyone can agree with):

Despite the fact that the Old Testament was an exceedingly patriarchal culture, there are obvious (and dramatic) examples of women in leadership (both political and spiritual). The important thing to note here isn't that there are few examples but rather that, considering how patriarchal the culture was, there are any at all!

Jesus was clearly uninterested in worrying about gender taboos.

Women exercised remarkable leadership in the early church. (There is no question whatsoever about the fact that women hosted house churches, were prophetesses, spoke in tongues at Pentecost, and learned from Christ alongside the disciples.)

Paul uses the term “Co-workers” to refer to key leaders in the early church, some of whom were women.

The word διακονος (I think that's how it's spelled, my Greek is rusty) appears 18 times in Paul's writings. The NRSV translates it as “deacon” (3x), “servant” (10x), and “minister” (5x). It's a difficult term to translate, but unquestionably included women. There is no “female” version of the term; the same form is used when referring to either men or women.

This may seem obvious, but we often ignore it: When interpreting the New Testament, we must seriously deal with both what the text says and what the early church did.

The above is basic. There really isn't much to argue with – as fare as pretty much everyone would agree, it's essentially facts. Beyond that, we deal with interpretations.

I can't give you a full run-down of the presentation; you'll have to wait for the DVD for that, however, there are a few things from the presentation that I found particularly worthy of noting here:

• That humanity is created both male and female is biblically connected with the teaching that humanity is created in the image of God. In other words, both men and women are bearers of the divine image.

• “Helper” (think Eve) is not a subordinate term. (This is actually a fact, not an interpretation. We can't make the term a subordinating one when it is used throughout the Old Testament to refer to God!)

• Pentecost is, fundamentally, the visible breaking down of sinful human distinctions. It is the dramatic obliteration of inequality (male/female, young/old, free/slave, rich/poor, etc.) and return to the original reality that all are bearers of the divine image and all are brought into God's/Christ's ministry by baptism by the Holy Spirit.

• We cannot understand the gospel or the early church without the obliteration of these categories.

There was so much more to Jim's presentation. But I can't present it well enough to do it justice. Like I said earlier – look forward to the DVD!

Grace and peace,

`tim

Forum on Women in Ministry at WTS

Today I attended an “RCA Advocacy Forum on Women in Leadership” and so thought I'd drop a few notes about it – it was an excellent day and while there was a good turn out, I wish more people could have been there.

They are intending to make a DVD out of it and I encourage everyone to pick up a copy, especially of the two morning sessions.

For the record, the following post is from my own notes and observations, not everyone would agree nor would I argue that I am the best nor most accurate note-taker in the world!

Morning Session #1:

Rev. Dr. Lynn Japinga on the history of women in ministry in the RCA

I started off the session a bit nervous. Within the first few moments into the first presentation of the day, I thought I noticed a disturbing trend of judgmental laughter from segments of the audience. Surely you know the kind of laughter I'm talking about. It isn't laughter merely because something is funny (although the presentation did include some humor), quite the opposite; it's laughter that quietly, but clearly, suggests anyone who who would would disagree or argue oppositely must be an ignorant buffoon. I don't have a lot of patience for that kind of thing – especially in settings that should be focusing on reconciliation and forward movement, and especially on topics that are biblically and hermeneutically difficult. Mockery isn't ever a good way to get someone on your side.

Having said that, I did not think the general tone of the day continued along those lines (nor am I suggesting that it was a result of any action/etc. on Lynn's part). As a whole, it was a healthy day of conversation, theology, stories, observations, and hopes.

Anyhow, back to her presentation; it revolved around three questions:

• Why is there so much resistance to women in church leadership?

• How does change occur?

• How do we implement that change?

Why is there so much resistance?

1. Biblical hermeneutic: we, in the RCA, do not have a universal biblical hermeneutic. This, among other things, leads to divergent interpretations of the Bible's message on the topic (and others!)

2. BCO Requirements: there are polity issues surrounding the ordination of women including, but not limited to, the church's interpretation of whether or not the archaic use of the word “men” is a comment on gender-qualifications and whether or not the potentially-accidental use of the word “persons” includes women.

3. The question of whether or not it's “good” for the church: this revolves around the question of whether or not the church is “ready” for women in ministry or if it's “the right time.”

4. The question of whether or not women are “fit” for ministry: in other words, is ministry an “appropriate” thing for women to engage in or is it only appropriate for men. (i.e. are only men “made for” ministry, whereas women, then, would presumably be “made for” dishes and pregnancy.)

The fourth point, she wisely observed, is often a quite argument but powerfully pervasive and may truly be at the root of our historic difficulties on the matter.

How does change happen?

Ironically, much of the change that initially happened on this front was done by men. (Obviously! women weren't allowed voice or vote on that, or any, matter until relatively recently.)

One key date: 1955. The General Synod formed a study committee (of 5 men) who came back with a determination that the Bible does not prevent the ordination of women nor does the argument from “tradition” hold water. This historic report, although not approved by the Classes, has been frequently cited.

Another key date: 1978. Three women (Valerie DeMarnis, Louise Ann Hill-Alto, and Klaire Miller) were ordained to the Ministry of Word and Sacrament. The ordinations were upheld by judicial action at Synod by a vote of 150 to 115. (Within a year of this decision, 275 women were elected to Consistories across the RCA – clearly it was a decision that many agreed with!)

One interesting observation, that I'd never really thought of is that the desire to “maintain peace” on both sides of the issue has often been problematic here. She (later in the lecture) reminded us that “there is no peace without justice” (MLK?) and similarly the Rev. Dr. Renee House, later in the day, noted that it's not fair for those who are oppressed to carry the load for unity and peace on their backs. WOW! What a powerful observation.

A few stats:

• Approximately 65% of the members in the RCA are women (although 75% of Consistory members in the RCA are men).

• Only approximately 5-15% of the delegates to General Synod are women.

How does change get implemented?

There are two key concerns that have to be recognized: First, a denominational culture that says “you can't make me do anything I don't want to do,” and secondly, a denominational fear of splitting (which she discussed in interesting detail but I'm not capable of doing justice on).

Some closing questions/observations:

• Are we willing to do what's right even if it makes some people unhappy?

• Polity, at times, can be either a blessing or a curse (my words, not hers)

• Experience plays an important role in biblical interpretation – what that role is is controversial?

• What is does it mean to be “RCA?” Who are we? What is our biblical/hermeneutical/theological/etc. identity?

One last note: We were given a wonderful time line of the key movements and actions on the topic. I don't feel it's my place to re-present it here, but watch for it. I'm sure it'll be printed and distributed extensively.

Later, a few notes on the 2^nd Session, but I'm sick of typing right now...

Grace and peace,

`tim

De-Baptisms?!

One of the key failures of the church, I believe, is that we have not adequately embraced the concept of baptism.  What does it mean to be "a member of Christ's Church" and "engaged to confess the gospel?"  I think the key is probably the word "engagement" - something very real and very important has happened but yet waits for fulfillment in another very real, but very important thing taking place.  For many, however, baptism has become some kind of superstitious, rather old-fashioned, religious ritual that helps salve the soul and provide a bit of comfort to those who know, probably not so deep down inside, that they aren't really going to raise their children in the faith nor, frankly, do they honestly have any kind of a faith to pass on to them.

And yet, we honor those who were baptized as infants by weak-faithed or faithless parents believing that God is faithful, even if we (or they) are not.  It doesn't matter that they didn't grow up in the church... it doesn't matter that they are now in their 40s and experiencing the liberal generosity of the gospel for the first time.   We hold strong to the belief that God did not fail them decades earlier when they were baptized and refuse to rebaptize them (at least in theory, the commitment to refuse rebaptism is rather weak in some corners of the RCA).

What do we do with those who have been "De-Baptized?"  Read about it:

http://www.time.com/time/world/article/0,8599,1891230,00.html?imw=Y?iid=perma_share

I'm only speaking in theory, I don't have a line of de-baptized individuals knocking down my door asking for re-baptisms following the experience of a post-de-baptism conversion... but I imagine such things may not be foreign to my future.

Interested in your thoughts....

Grace and Peace,

  `tim