Well, here it is.
I have thought, for some time now, that the homosexuality controversy in the RCA has been exacerbated by a profoundly unreformed view of divine sovereignty. (Note: I am not suggesting that particular views regarding homosexuality are related to this but that our varied responses to it are.)
Irregardless of our religious, theological, biblical, social, etc. view on homosexuality (or anything else for that matter), I would suggest there is a reformed approach to our differences and an un-reformed approach. Unfortunately, it seems we’ve may often take the un-reformed road.
Maybe you disagree!
I’ve tried to put some of my thought process down on paper. The rough draft is here:
It should go without saying, but I’ll say it anyhow: this is not a publication piece. Read it; respond to it; give me constructive feedback. Flames and bitter ranting will be summarily ignored.
Grace and Peace,
`tim
We’ve talked a bit about this, and obviously I’m in agreement with you that many of our current disagreements in the RCA come down to a non-Reformed understanding of God’s sovereignty (as well as a lack of understanding of Reformed ecclesiology…but I can see how that too might be traced to our understanding of sovereignty). I particularly liked the part about the Church being an expression of God’s will rather than the arbiter of it.
A couple of questions:
- I think you would agree that there are certain beliefs and behaviors to which the Church must say “No,” not simply create conscience clauses to allow its members to hold varying perspectives. How do we determine communally what does not fit within our boundaries, and how might we react toward those things?
- What role and form does church discipline take in a pneumatically-mediated view of God’s sovereignty?
You, of course, have two excellent points. I don’t know that I can fully respond, but I do have a few thoughts.
First, I have this very basic idea that the church is God’s (not ours). With that in mind, it would seem that we ought to be quite careful about what we consider worthy of creating division within the church over. In other words, relating to your first question: which things are solid “nos” worth putting our lives on the line for. (I do believe there is a point where we must be willing to do that.) In short, I think those things are only what I describe as “having to do with who God is and what God is.” We ought to be willing to put our lives on the line for something like sovereignty, or the Trinity, or Christian soteriology (I see this as relating to who and what God [Christ] is). There are undoubtedly others.
That doesn’t, of course, make other doctrines unimportant (bor example, I have exceedingly strong beliefs regarding the Lord’s Supper) but it does render them outside of the realm of such a drastic stance.
(It’s probably worth noting that I do believe certain other topics deserve a solid “no” from the church. For example, the church should be proactive against issues like apartheid, etc. These, however, may still fit into my above category, since reconciliation and justice are so closely related to who and what God is. That deserves more thought than I’ve yet given it.)
Church discipline, as you’ve noted, is perhaps the greatest uncertainty in my whole idea. I suppose there are two options:
1) We just shouldn’t do it (and the Belgic Confession is wrong for considering it one of the marks of the true church).
or 2) There are places for it.
Of course, I’d say #2. The question is how. First of all, it seems we should be abundantly clear that discipline needs to be clearly understood as distinct from punishment. Discpline has to do with discipleship, teaching, and learning. Punishment has to do with payment, retribution or revenge. Discipline, then, is about helping people live in right relationship with God, through Christ, in the Holy Spirit. Church discipline is nothing less.
Unfortunately, we still have those rare situation where discipline reaches judicial levels. I would argue that, again, punishment is generally not appropriate (shouldn’t that typically be God’s business?!)
In those rare situations where judicial action is required, the church is forced to do nothing less than God did when humankind fell: relegate the individual to the consequences of their behavior (prayerfully and temporarily, with hope and expection of repentance and readmittance).
Consider the situation in the American Catholic church a few years ago. There, of course, it was appropriate to allow the offenders to reap the consequences of their behavior (jail, etc.) Such things are rare though.
My German professor used to say “Klar wie dicke Tinte.” (“Clear as thick ink.”) Perhaps that’s all I’ve managed to do here?!
Grace and Peace,
`tim
Thanks for your thoughts. I commented more in the interest of continuing a conversation than demanding an absolute answer. After all, part of this whole pneumatically-mediated understanding of sovereignty is an acknowledgement that what God is doing is likely to be beyond our understanding or control. So, ambiguity is to be expected.
Your comment about apartheid, and reconciliation and justice being closely related to who God is, made me think. I agree with you wholeheartedly that the Church ought to be about the work of justice, because that is the nature of God. It would be easy for me to say that a church or person who supports apartheid is therefore not within acceptable boundaries. But this sort of thinking is not far off from those who believe that homosexuality is unholy, and since God is Holy, the Church must oppose homosexuality. Of course, I don’t think this means that we should say that apartheid is acceptable, but it only strengthens my sense that we need to be extremely cautious about what boundaries we set – and even more so about how we respond to those who fall outside of those boundaries.
As for discipline, this topic has for obvious reasons been much in my thoughts lately. The Kansfield trial was not, however, the first time I’ve seen the most severe forms of church discipline in action. During seminary, I worked in a church that, after exercising all of the other proper disciplinary measures, decided to bar one of its members from the Communion table. This troubled me, but at the same time, the man’s actions demanded a disciplinary response. He continued to attend church services, and the elders made on-going attempts to restore him to full participation in the church. It made me uncomfortable, but seemed to be done in the best possible way.
Perhaps a distinction between punishment (which I believe is always inappropriate) and discipline (a mark of the True Church) is in part that it makes us uncomfortable – that we genuinely grieve for the even partial loss of part of the family of God, and that we therefore work continuously toward restoration of that person.
It seems to me that we ought to discipline not in order to separate someone from the Body (as in, “we have to cut them off so they will realize their sin!”) but rather because we recognize and grieve their estrangement from the Body and long to be reconciled with them.
I think you make a good point regarding the ongoing nature of discipline – a point (perhaps?) lost on many of our colleagues. There is a true sense in which even the most severe forms of judicial discipline in the church aren’t expected to be permanent. As a matter of fact, as long as they remain in effect, the church is somehow in a state of deficency.
Regarding homosexuality, although there are those who would disagree with me, there is simply no possible way I can place that on a par with apartheid. I know this may be a slippery slope but I guess I’d argue that some issues speak to the core of the divine identity and others do not. Apartheid did; it undermined the very concepts of grace and reconciliation. Few things (though we may still have the responsiblity to speak against them) are on that fundamental of a level.
You are right though, that is the slippery wicket in this whole thing. Once we start making exceptions to the “Who and what God is” concept for anything (no matter how important) we have to be very, very careful.
I wonder if, perhaps, one of the important issues is the question of motive. Unifying the church against apartheid had a basic motive of promoting justice and reconciliation. Unifying the church against homosexuality (as some of our colleagues are attempting) has to do with protectionism (which I’ve already suggested is actually God’s job, not ours) and perhaps fear? (I still submit that the strong reaction against homosexuality is due to the fact that people tend to make theological determinations primarily on visceral reactions rather than true biblical study.)
Grace and Peace,
`tim
I think I am suspicious about protectionist inclinations because they always seem to be about keeping someone out. I tend to be more supportive, or at least understanding, of reconciliatory movements, because they focus on bringing someone in (or acknowledging their ‘in-ness’). I’m with you on leaving any necessary protection up to God.
And yet, I don’t want to indicate or practice some sort of fluffy, y’all come, anything-goes Christianity…Where that leaves me, I’m not sure. I have an inkling that it may have to do with going back to the “who is God” question, and really hashing out what we believe about the nature and work of God in the world.
Re: the visceral reactions to homosexuality. In a seminary discussion, one of my classmates asked how many of us had a sort of “gross-out factor” related to the idea of two people of the same gender having sex (particularly men). Most of the class – mostly men – agreed that they did. But my classmate’s point was that our theology should never be based on our gut heebie-jeebies. Too often, I think, the church’s response to homosexuality is, as you suggest, based on that visceral response.
But then, often so is the reaction to women preaching. It’s ‘wierd’ for many people to see a woman in the pulpit, and therefore it must be bad. But that’s a whole other can of worms!
Back to discipline…How might a disciplinary proceeding look if we are truly focused on restoration? I think one of the key parts of regaining an appropriate sense of discipline in the RCA (which I do believe many of our colleagues lack) is presenting an alternate model. It seems to me that we tend to err toward either punishment or no discipline at all.
Restoration. Hmmm. What an uncomfortable concept! That would suggest that we actually mean what we pray when we utter the words “as we forgive those….”
I wonder if restoration based discipline is a practical impossiblity in most contemporary communities. It assumes a certain relationship between church members that may be lacking in our society where cafeteria-style, “move when it gets uncomfortable” approaches to community prevail.
Without restoration as an option (because we – or they – have already left the community) perhaps punishment seems like the only option?
This is my biggest problem with the Kansfield situation. Although I agree that something was probably necessary, he was “disciplined” outside of a community/relationship (and therefore without the potential for restoration.) [Which leads to the question of motive, which you commented on earlier, and I raise in today's post.]
I don’t know.
Grace and Peace,
`tim