Following the Script
There really isn’t any great mystery about what’s coming next in the CRC struggle over what to say and do about the liberation of sexual minorities. There should be no mystery because we’ve been watching this play out in the PCUSA, the Lutherans, the Mennonites, the UMC, the RCA and others for a number of years now.
These things will probably happen, not necessarily in this order.
- Synod 2016 doesn’t fully embrace the Pastoral Guidance report
- Synod proposes changing Article 69 (Overture 20 and others) as a firewall
- Synod creates a new study committee composed of individuals who will bring forward a more conservative perspective than the majority report of the Pastoral Guidance Report and says we won’t talk about it for the three years until that report is written.
- After a while a church decides to publicly force the issue by ordaining a deacon or elder in a same-sex marriage or a pastor officiates at a same-sex wedding. The focus shifts to see if their classis will take action. If classis does nothing then the focus shift to see if Synod will act. You don’t necessarily have to win a vote at Synod if you want to see this practice tolerated in the CRC. It just has to stop being disciplined. (Remember that it is suggested that discipline is a mark of the church? Don’t we seem to be getting along with less and less of it?)
- There will be more and more pressure for “the local option”. The fight over “the local option” will produce lots of what I call “bulls-eye theology” reports. We’ve been watching this unfold in the RCA and in other places with books and articles written back and forth whether the Bible permits or mandates these practices. I call this “bulls-eye theology” because the target of the theological analysis or report is pre-determined. The outcome of the report is set before the report is written usually by the composition of the committee. The bulls-eye is placed on the wall and a group is found to hit the bulls-eye with their report, on both the traditional and progressive side. For those of you who follow Jonathan Haidt’s metaphor of the rider and the elephant the rider makes up stories to explain and justify the behavior of the elephant beneath her.
- At some point people just stop talking about the theology of the issue because most of what is being produced is bulls-eye theology and the combatants on both sides reach for Bulverisms like “they are homophobes” or “they are liberals who don’t believe the authority of Scripture”, etc. The combatant’s minds are already made up, the theologies are mere bulls-eye theologies and so the conflict turns purely political. The battle is for the non-vocal majority who aren’t saying much or even necessarily paying much attention. The issue becomes a shibbolleth for who churches and assemblies send to higher assemblies.
- Proxy battles and factioning increases. Pastors, churches, classes are increasingly labeled according to where they stand. Overture 3 (Same-sex attracted advisors to Synod) Overture 15 (Gender Dysphoria) and other things are seen or suspected as flanking maneuvers all in the political battle to win the next vote in the script. Even though everyone who comes to the meeting signs the Covenant for Office Bearers the practice means little because the historical confessions are non-operative in the real conflict beneath the feelings of the factions.
- Progressive imaginaries create expectations in both the affirming and traditional camps. The affirming camp is encouraged and traditional camp discouraged by the assumption that “time is on their side.”
- Side Comment: I think this becomes a sort of self-fulfilling prophesy by encouraging the affirming side to stay in a non-affirming denomination because they expect they will win and it encourages non-affirming churches to leave with their churches at varying stages of the fight. In reality it is more complex which can be seen by the growth of African churches in the UMC and the growth of the evangelical wing of the RCA.
- If the affirming side secures its local option the ground game continues to move church by church, classis by classis to join the inclusive camp. This will be harder than it was for the WICO fight simply because the population of same sex couples is far smaller than the population of women, but some churches will embrace and affirming stance out of conscience. There will be increased pressure “not to police” the sex lives and family relationships of anyone. The language will shift from this being a conscience issue “local option” to a justice issue. There will be increasing pressure to insure that sexual minority voices and representation can be found in denominational committees and assemblies.
None of this is new, mysterious or surprising. Everyone knows the script but knowing it doesn’t necessarily prevent the church from following it. Knowing the script in fact heightens the political tension and accelerates the timing. Both sides in the conflict know the next move of the other side and tries to leapfrog to other to gain a political advantage.
De-constructing the Script
Those of you who follow my blog know that I read through a lot of online materials. These recent pieces nicely illustrate the conversion stories operating powerfully in this conversation.
These stories operate powerfully in the conversation.
Those who have a traditional position on the subject are asked “what if your son or daughter were gay? Wouldn’t you want them to find love and happiness? Would you want them to stay in a church that treats them like second class citizens blocking and barring them from enjoying that natural happiness of romantic and sexual love that the heteros enjoy?”
At this point none of my 5 children have come out and if they did I would of course love them “anyway”, as if love were a binary thing only preserved through agreement and compliance. I am not going to harshly judge LGBTQ persons or their parents for their choices. It is easy for me to believe that if I were in their shoes I would choose as they do. We all have to make choices within the complex situations we find ourselves and as the 73 report made clear most don’t “choose” these circumstances.
The Practical “Solution” is to See There Never Really Was a Problem Continue reading →
