A God of Confusion?

Continuing with the examination by Paul VanderKlay (PVK) of the results of the recent synod of the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) on the subject of gay marriage.  Regarding the result, and as a reminder:

The Christian Reformed Church, a small evangelical denomination of U.S. and Canadian churches, voted Wednesday (June 15) at its annual synod to codify its opposition to homosexual sex by elevating it to the status of confession, or declaration of faith.

The vote was overwhelming.

PVK has released a third video looking at the vote and the aftermath, entitled “What is a Confessional Conversation and How it Could Help the CRCNA Sort out its Future.”  Through it, he expands on his thoughts of the need of just such a conversation within the CRC.

I commented at this video, and will expand on these comments here.  These comments are relevant to his denomination, the broader Church, and overall, regarding society – as the same issues tearing apart one are tearing apart all.

--------------------------------------------

A thing cannot both be and not be at the same time.  To be or not to be, and all that…. “Or,” not “and.”

There is a standard or there isn't a standard; there is an ideal or there isn't an ideal; there is objective truth or there isn't objective truth; there are borders or there aren’t borders; there are boundaries or there aren’t boundaries; there is a created order or there isn't a created order; there is natural law or there isn't natural law.

1 Corinthians 14: 33 (a) For God is not a God of confusion but of peace.

How might we understand a God of confusion as opposed to a God of peace?  What characteristics would describe one verses the other?  And, as God is a God of peace, what might this mean regarding these characteristics?

Imagine a world built on standards, ideals, objective truth, borders, boundaries, created order, natural law.  Then imagine a world with no standards, no ideals, no objective truth, no borders, no boundaries, no created order, no natural law.  The first would be peaceful, the second would be confusing.

One could consider the characteristics of “peace” as traditional conservatism.  As I have written in the past, the only meaningful thing to conserve – as all other markers are just points at which conservatives attempt to slow down the momentum of progressives – is a natural law ethic.

One could consider the characteristics of “confusion” as progressivism, modern liberalism, leftism, etc.  But this isn’t quite true.  These groups do have a standard – and that is to have no standard; they do have ideals – and that is to have no ideal; they have an objective truth – that there is no such thing as objective truth.  So, while the statement isn’t quite true of these groups (no standard, no ideals, etc.), the practical result and application is the same.

A society without borders or boundaries – no right to justly acquired property, no right to one’s bodily integrity and life.  Is this a peaceful society?  A society with no commonly accepted standard or ideal – will this lead to peace or confusion?

So, in this discussion / debate in the CRC, the broader Church, and society overall, which side is the side of peace, and which side is the side of confusion?  Can there be a meaningful and successful conversation (a conversation moving closer to common understanding) between those on the side of peace and those on the side of confusion?

The Narrow Path

(RNS) — The Christian Reformed Church, a small evangelical denomination of U.S. and Canadian churches, voted Wednesday (June 15) at its annual synod to codify its opposition to homosexual sex by elevating it to the status of confession, or declaration of faith.

The 123-53 vote at Calvin University in Grand Rapids, Michigan, caps a process begun in 2016 when a previous synod voted to form a study committee to bring a report on the “biblical theology” of sexuality.

The vote, following a long day of debate, approves a list of what the denomination calls sexual immorality it won’t tolerate, including “adultery, premarital sex, extra-marital sex, polyamory, pornography and homosexual sex.”

Paul VanderKlay has been preparing for this synod for quite some time.  In past videos when addressing this topic, he has demonstrated a sadness that he knew that the issue would tear the denomination apart.  He has offered a couple of short videos outlining his thoughts and reactions to the vote, here and here.

I commented at the first of these two videos, and my (edited) comment follows (with a few further thoughts thrown in):

In my parents’ home was a poster, depicting the narrow path and the broad path.  The first showed a family under blessing; the second, movie theaters, alcohol, prostitutes, etc.  The first led to heaven, the second to hell.  Setting aside the theological discussions which such a depiction entails, it is at least an interpretation of Jesus’s words in Matthew 7: 13-14.

This is the poster, although I don’t recall that the one my parents had was in German:

 

 What such a decision does to the CRC is unknown; but it is doctrinally correct.  Matthew 7:21 is quite applicable here.  No one said the road would be easy, and teaching people that it would be easy is a path to destruction for all.  This is not to discount the point: what we believe to be true (and is objectively true) says nothing about how we relate to those who live outside of or fall short of that truth.  We all have logs in our eyes.

Lines have to be drawn somewhere, don’t they?  Remember, we are enemies to those of this world.  Yes, we are to love our enemies; this doesn’t mean we have to affirm and accept and take pride in everything done by our enemies – in June or in any other month of the year.

It is also interesting to note that Calvin University will now (presumably) require a signed statement on beliefs regarding homosexuality. 

Calvin University is owned by and under the auspices of the Christian Reformed Church of North America.  As this issue is now a statement of confession, well…if such a statement cannot be confirmed by those employed by and representing the denomination…this has to mean something, doesn’t it?

This is nothing new in society – corporate, academia, etc.  It is just that this might be one of the few institutions that requires the statement opposite of that which many other institutions are demanding.  The university may see an increase in student applications, as many are looking for such academic institutions for their children.

I do believe that this last sentence may be truer than even I understand.  We see people searching for solutions to this meaning crisis.  At the root of the meaning crisis is the abandonment of objective truth and the natural law ethic built on this.  We see interest in the Traditional Latin Mass, in the Orthodox Church, and in Protestant denominations that hold to a more conservative social construct. 

People are looking for meaning.  They want something built on rock, not sand.

Finally…interesting to note 20% strongly in favor, 20% strongly opposed, with those in-between voting primarily on the conservative / traditional side.  This is an image of the larger society.  Just because the crazies scream the loudest or get the entire month of June to shove their views down our throats doesn’t mean that they have numbers.

There are more normal people out there than we might come to believe if we only watch the mainstream or listen to our politicians.  

Conclusion

I think it is fitting that we get to celebrate this event in June….