I’ve been mulling over John Suk, his blog, his exodus from the CRC, and especially the response to it and to his book. I didn’t quite know what to write. I often find that addressing a particular community, in this case CRC-Voices helps me because I know the people I’m speaking with. In writing this response, however, I’m finding it’s addressing my feelings about the episode and how it’s playing out on the CRC Facebook conversations so I’ll post it here so I can share it with them too. pvk
I posted a comment on John’s blog on his second coming post, he gave a nice response. I’ll probably respond.
I hear various “voices” in responding to John. Our responses are always our own and often say more about us than they say about what we’re responding too.
On the CRC Pastor’s FB page a bit of discussion got going which I’ve read. I haven’t read the “Returning” discussion.
Part of us wants to punish John from breaking ranks, betraying the cause, stepping out of line. Why? When he did, or does, or will, we feel discredited, diminished, reduced, less serious or believable. Our faith, our witness, our positions and beliefs, were walked away from. That might make us feel insecure, betrayed, unsettled, angry. Remember, our responses are always our own.
I don’t hear malice in John’s writing. Given John’s story I understand some of how and why he is where he is today.
I think it’s healthier for him and for us to speak honestly about his doubts and ours. Belief is not a simple thing. God hates duplicity and at some point we have to be honest with ourselves and each other. If we both embrace the idea that God hates duplicity AND that the results of our process today lands us in places judged by others, or even previous selves to be heterodox, then we’re there. Of course God understands all of this. How does he judge it? Well that answer is part of the body of knowledge we’re working on, isn’t it.
I think when Jesus instructs us to pray “our Father in heaven” he invites us to bank on the character and relationship of a Father. Kenneth Bailey in his book “Jesus through Middle Eastern Eyes” suggests that the “Father” in the prayer should be defined by the Father of Luke 15. That Father, contrary to public opinion of the time did not beat either son, but I think understood process. The story also reveals that the decisions of the sons are seriously taken and consequential. John isn’t shirking any of this either in his writing as far as I can see. So here we are in the messy middle, like where Luke 15 leaves us with the elder brother. The Father pleading in the field trying to help the older brother understand why he did what he did with his younger, rebellious sibling.
John of course is not the only smart doubter out there, and other, lower profile smarter, doubters are watching the CRC, their church, to see how John is treated. John is a big boy and can take care of himself quite ably. It’s the crowd of witnesses watching that I am more concerned about. Again, our responses are always our own, and we will too will be judged for them. pvk
Leadingchurch.com 
Paul, in your reaction to others in the matter of Jesus’ Second coming, you did not distinguish different types of nuanced responses. I was simply wondering whether the slogan of the WCC in 1948 in their emphasis on Jesus’ as the Hope of the World – also in terms of his second coming – was something he could accept. I was looking for the lowest common denominator.
Thanks Winston. There were lots of responses. The cyber medium of often a blunt instrument where nuance escapes. 🙂 pvk
But Paul, nuance or not, here is where most of the churches of the world – of whatever stripe [except for the CRC!] agreed, in an historic meeting in Amsterdam, on a fundamental fact. This meeting was a blunt instrument! 1948 was my first year at Calvin as a pre-seminary student and even then already I was perplexed by the apparent indifference of our denomination to such an historic event..
I remember, years ago, having lunch with John early in his stint at the Banner. He agreed to allow a group of us to place a small classified ad in the Banner for the Calvin Gay and Lesbian Alumni Association. He did it because we presented a reasonable, logical case for the existence of a group who was very pro-Calvin, took no theological positions, and just wanted to make it’s presence known. What we wanted to do violated none of the rules John had been given for what ads he could accept. Of course, the ensuing storm of outrage almost cost him his job. Galen Byker threatened to sue us for trademark infringement, even though it was legally implausible. We were, in fact, Calvin alumni, not a competitor. I got telephone threats, because my phone number was in the ad. Those were the days. In retrospect, I remember thinking that John was far too reasonable to stay long in the CRC, unless the CRC evolved faster than anybody could reasonably expect. And to no one’s surprise, the CRC still has some officially discriminatory, not to mention ludicrous views as regards gay people, which they share with megabuck donors and the Republican party. So the CRC is being the CRC, and John is being John. World without end, Amen.
I appreciate the last part of your entry that gives weight to all of us who are indeed watching how the CRC reacts to those who doubt.