Bob De Moor Suggests a Local Option would bring Peace and Unity
Banner Editor Bob De Moor in his final editorial suggested that the “local option” might be a way to resolve the question of LGBTQ inclusion in the CRCNA.
That “local option” helped us to clearly affirm biblical teaching, leave room for different perspectives on what is or isn’t a sin, and allows churches to exercise pastoral care and discipline in line with our understanding that the CRC confers primary authority on local councils.
He seems to offer this as a path for peace and unity. Let’s play this out a little bit.
From Membership to Leadership to Quotas
Let’s imagine that the Synod of 2016 decides to not only accept the pastoral care report but “looks ahead” down the road and decides that in order to prevent the nasty wrangling going on in other denominations like the RCA, the PCUSA or the UMC it would pass a resolution allowing local congregations to interpret the Bible on their own as to the question of whether same sex marriage is sinful or not.
Now this is about as unlikely a scenario for Synod 2016 as we can imagine given the number of overtures coming to it regarding this topic but play along with me. In a couple of paragraphs someone might suggest that I’m indulging in a “slippery slope” argument but you can be the judge if my ponderings are unreasonable.
Now after we imagine Synod 2016 passing this resolution overturning the position of the now famous 73 report (no church order adjustment is required and therefore no need for a second Synod to ratify it) a few local congregations, clergy and members might celebrate. Some of the openly gay and lesbian couples in CRCs that are semi-closeted could finally fully join and many of the singles would for the first time imagine that they could marry in their local CRC and be accepted.
Next Steps
After the initial euphoria in a few churches focus would turn to other congregations where semi-closeted gay and lesbian couples would like to join but the congregations doesn’t have a majority of members of its leadership in agreement with Synod’s decision. Given the survey results of the current Synodical report we can probably assume that this is a majority of the churches. Portions of these churches that support this imagined inclusive resolution of 2016 would then start to move in more activistic ways so have their congregations switch positions. They would look for affirming members to be elected to council, look for affirming pastors to be called while the other side would do the same. The congregations would organize study committees and listening sessions to explore the issue. In many cases this would raise the level of acrimony but those wanting peace would increasingly say things like “neither side is wrong or sinful, both perspectives are permissible, we shouldn’t really fight over this…”
All the while of course, individuals who are passionate about the issue one way or another would be counting votes, labeling and counting council members, labeling and counting clergy and eventually seats at classis.
On to Representational Leadership and Celebration of “Pioneers”
After the initial euphoria of inclusion in some local churches the next step question would of course be “does our council reflect the diversity of sexual and gender minorities in our church and community?” There would be a push for some of the early gay and lesbian members to be elected to council. These individuals first elected would be celebrated as “pioneers” in gender equality and would be featured in Banner pieces and on the Facebook page and blog of All One Body. Other CRC members who are not affirming would note these celebrations, be offended by them, and begin to organize to resist what they identify as a developing threat to the purity of the church. Maybe they might start a Facebook group and call it the “Regrouping Church”.
Soon those celebrating the increasing number of congregations affirming the sexual minorities would talk about seeing the first openly gay or lesbian CRC pastor in a committed relationship and a congregation or two would want to be the first to have this person as their pastor. This person would of course be courageous, a hero and a pioneer facing the discrimination and bigotry of non-affirming elements of the CRCNA. This person likely didn’t go through Calvin Theological Seminary as an openly gay person in a committed relationship leaving room for a future pioneer to take that path with the anticipatory celebrations.
On to Further Fights at Classis and Synod Continue reading →
