Once more, it’s that time. My collection of observations, oddities, and other tidbits. If one doesn’t do much for you, maybe the next one will.
Will Elvis know? Apparently it was Elvis who originally recorded the song “Farther Along.” I’ve become quite fond of this version by Josh Garrels. The chorus sings, “Farther along, we’ll know all about it. Farther along, we’ll understand why. . .We’ll understand it, all by and by.” While I appreciate the song, I’ve begun to think that understanding and knowing why, by and by, may not ultimately matter very much. What if understanding and all our questions being answered will simply seem mundane and passe in the by and by? I half-hope that it all melts away, unimportant in the presence of something far more beautiful.
Single women with cats. I don’t think they had cats, but the idea that single women have “no direct stake in the future” would come as a big surprise to the four single women who were the four most generous donors to the church’s endowment fund at my former congregation.
Say your name. A small suggestion: when you comment here on RJ (and we very much like it when you do) please share your whole name. We’re trying to build community and a sense of trust. Pseudonyms and initials don’t do that. No need to hide. One of our occasional semi-trolls uses the name of a character from the Simpsons! Sigh.
Planting Seeds. Right before Thanksgiving last year, I heard from a former student. Bright, a bit defiant, proudly agnostic. She wrote, “I remember you said in class, the day before Thanksgiving, ‘If you don’t believe in God, who are you really giving thanks to? What’s the point?’” It must have been an off-the-cuff comment. I don’t remember it. She did. Still agnostic? Not sure.
Tear jerker. Who else finds it difficult to confess, “I look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come” without getting a lump in your throat?
Fill ‘er up! Lately I’m torn when filling my car with gas. I’ve been using pure petroleum, which is more expensive. No ethanol – out of anger and spite toward big-ag. Here in Iowa, big-ag is a shameless bully in our political process, while defiling our water and soil.
Fiery hate. In the middle of nowhere Iowa, some hardworking soul pulled a decrepit travel trailer into their pasture right along Interstate 80. On the side, in six foot letters of bright red tape, was FJB. (Let the reader understand.) FJB for all to see who whizzed by on the highway. Now, two years later, the trailer is even more dilapidated. Only some sticky residue remains where once were gigantic letters. Even if you know the original message, it’s hard to decipher anything now. I take it as a sign of hope. It takes a lot of stamina and dedication to maintain intense hatred. Fortunately, most of us do not have enough.
Words matter. I don’t want to be part of any language-police, but I’ve been using “siblings and kindred” instead of “sisters and brothers” in an effort to be more inclusive of my non-binary friends.
Pastors’ spouses wonder. When Justice Alito asserted that the right-wing flags flying outside his vacation home were his wife’s doing, and that he really couldn’t control her nor did he want to try, I thought of pastors’ spouses. How many times have they wanted to say or do something, or express themselves honestly – if controversially – or fly a particular flag outside their home? However, they had the wisdom and grace not to do so because of the trouble it would cause their spouse. Can’t we ask as much of a Supreme Court Justice’s spouse as we ask of a run-of-the-mill pastor’s spouse?
Live-streaming? Meh. While I’m dubious about studies that “prove” the benefits of attending worship, I was amused by a study that showed that those watching via live-stream do not receive any benefits. Yes, there are a few people for whom watching online is their only option, but for the vast majority, actually being there – face-to-face, in-the-flesh – seems to matter.
Biblical hand grenades. How many times do I have to hear Christians tossing 2 Timothy at any other Christians who disagrees with them? “The time is coming when people will not put up with sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions.” If we’re going to toss some biblical hand grenades, which verse would you toss back? “You shut the door of the kingdom of heaven in people’s faces. You yourselves do not enter, and when others are going in, you stop them” (Matthew 23). Or maybe “Jesus replied, ‘If you were truly blind, you would be blameless. But since you insist on claiming that you can see, you are accountable for what you fail to see’” (John 9).
It doesn’t work. Words of a seasoned, Christian gentleman who recently stepped away from a lifetime of fundamentalism: “For my entire life, the churches I’ve been involved in have basically preached and taught ‘Sin Prevention’ – how to sin less. It doesn’t work. Far better, I’ve discovered, to proclaim the vast and wondrous grace of Jesus Christ!”
Three Qs. My denomination, the Reformed Church in America, reports rapid growth and popularity in many Latin American contexts. This is a break with RCA tradition which always encouraged non-USA/Canadian congregations to join local and indigenous groups. I have three simple questions for anyone wanting to be part of the RCA – these Latin American congregations and others. 1.) Do women hold leadership positions in your congregation and are you committed to the full equality of women in the church? 2.) Do you celebrate infant baptism, as an expression of God’s prevenient grace? 3.) Can you be in fellowship with LGBTQ+ Christians and congregations that welcome and affirm them? You need not be affirming yourselves, but you have to be able to live, work, and worship with those who are. If you can’t say “yes” to all three, the RCA is not the place for you. And to the RCA leaders, can you tell me that these recent joiners will give an enthusiastic “Yes!” to all three?
Is there equivalence? Right-wing militia: “I love my country, but hate the government!” Left-wing Christian:”I love God, but hate the church!” Or, White American Evangelicals: “”Genuine Christians’ are under assault in America today.” Left-wing academics: “Today’s America has a strong anti-intellectual bent.”
Question for future synods: Is being a billionaire a “salvation issue”?
PIck up the tab. A conversation in a morning men’s group led to surprising and emotional confessions. The subject matter? Children paying for or being treated to dinner by parents. Older fathers spoke with tears about how proud and pleased they were when their adult child picked up the restaurant check. Others spoke with dismay and hurt that their adult children, who are far better off than their parents, still expect mom and dad to pay for the meal.
Favorite recent quotes
- We used to think the problem was Islam. Turns out it was fundamentalism all along. ~ Sophie Mathonnet-VanderWell, IM thread
- How can any set of historic doctrines “fully agree with the Word of God”? The Word of God is not some repository of true statements. It is a living and active thing, always beyond our agreement, always challenging our agreement. Reformation children especially should know this. The Holy Scripture is always bursting out of our Doctrinal Standards, thank God! And as you know, I love our Doctrinal Standards. ~ Daniel Meeter, discussing the Christian Reformed Church’s Covenant for Office Holders in email correspondence
- Earth-based poetry is not Esperanto. Wisdom sits in places, breeding aches, allegiances, and vernanculars too site-specific to be grasped by one and all. ~ David James Duncan, Sun House
Yup, “”we look for the resurrection of the dead and the life of the world to come.” And the settings of it by Bach, Beethoven, and Bruckner.
Thankyou Steve for each and every thought-provoking tidbit!!
Peace.
Re: the 3 questions. Indeed, this is a thorny issue that the PCUSA (at least) has been struggling with for a while. We (I speak of the RCA) are not alone in the phenomenon of international Churches wishing to either affiliate or outright join. This is the kind of thing an ecumenical office should be looking into, for the sake of both wisdom and comity. It’s also a matter for discernment about the changed situation we are living in today, and for inquiring into the meaning of hospitality on a large scale. And, quite possibly, an occasion for the RCA not to repeat old patterns of “we can’t do this because it threatens our identity.” I’m not saying “full speed ahead” by any means. But neither does it seem right and just to say “go away because you aren’t like us.” Honest and earnest discernment, with wise and transparent leadership, is in order. I hope we are up to it.
Thanks, Paul. I’m hope I’m not sounding parochial or defensive about “being Reformed.” If someday, we end up with the “Protestant Church of the US” I can easily and gladly live with Baptists. But right now, if you believe in adult baptism, then I’d say go join a body with those beliefs. Infant baptism is, I believe, one key indicator of Reformed theology. And as far as being able to live, work, and worship with LGBTQ+ people and their allies, I’ll own a concern that some in the RCA leadership are looking to bring in non-open & affirming congregations and leaders in order eventually, to “win the day” or dilute the influence of O&A congregations and people. I wish I knew of great bursts of energy in the RCA to plant and/or bring in open and affirming churches. CRCers, on the way out, as the Macedonian man said to St. Paul in a dream, “Come over and help us!”
Loved all these small slices of your life. The first one truly resonanted deeply as life has battered us in the last year and a half. I have come to believe that what we pose as the questions we can’t wait to ask God won’t matter and will fall away when we see him face to face. We can’t even imagine such perfection and joy.
I love the three Q’s. Those are good questions for existing congregations, as well. Good questions for new members, and search committees seeking leadership, too. I wish I had asked these in my previous interviews!
My favorite was “ Fill ‘er up!” Although it’s a small act of resistance, I think it’s meaningful. Thanks for sharing your perspectives and encouraging us to say our names.
But you two, isn’t Premium gas bad for most engines?
And my anti-ethanol pique is an example of hatred waning over time. When the Iowa legislature is in session or I have recently read something especially egregious about BIg-Ag in Iowa, I buy gas. Over time, my anger fades and I’m lured by the lower prices of the ethanol blend. And Daniel Carlson is correct. I want a charging station in my garage in the not-too-distant future.
Thank you. “live, work, and worship with those who are…” and do no harm…no charges…no GS overtures, papers, recommendations, etc. that challenge women in leadership, infant baptism, and LGBTQ+ people.
Thanks for these; keep ’em coming, Steve!
And to Daniel Meeter’s question: all fossil gas is bad for this warming world. Charge ‘er up!
Hi Steve. I’m a big fan of the “various and sundry” type of post – they provide much to chew on. A few thoughts, in corresponding order:
1) Will Elvis know? Full agree! I have a hard time imagining the wonderment and revelation of heaven being focused on understanding the previous struggles and conundrums of earthly life. I still do love the song and tend toward the acapella version by the Peasall Sisters at the Gaither gathering (yes, I know).
2) Single women with cats. Much agreement here, and yet I wonder if there is room to think beyond the poor manner of expression to appreciate an underlying message from Vance as well. Clearly Vance is countering a cultural trend that strays from the faithful priorities of family and fecundity. I’m not here advocating for some notion of quiverfull, but I think we can agree broadly with Vance that our society does not value as God does the notions of children and the blessings of intact and fruitful families. And yes, those good things ought not be pitted against singleness.
3) Say your name. Full agree. I too struggle with anonymous commenters.
4) Planting Seeds. So important! Who knows just what we say or how we say something will stick with and impact another (for good and ill).
5) Tear jerker. That’s exactly why I can hardly sing at funerals – the lump in the throat upon reflection on these realities in the face of loss.
6) Fill ‘er up! I might just note that it’s a good thing all pastors aren’t judged by the worst of them.
7) Fiery hate. Hatred takes a lot of forms, doesn’t it? Sometimes I see it here. I guess the lesson is that it is oh-so-easy to spot the hate in others (particularly parked alongside the road) while we tend to excuse it in subtler forms in ourselves and those with which we associate. I would give you greater props (not that you are looking for props) if you were to call out some of the hatred expressed here quite regularly against brothers and sisters in Christ. As it is, you have simply plucked the low hanging fruit. And I confess to the same temptation.
8) Words matter. Full agree with the sentiment, though I would be prone to apply the principle differently.
9) Pastors’ spouses wonder. Do we ask that of pastor’s spouses, or do they ask that of themselves? It’s also interesting how the examples of public failing nigh-unto-always point in one political direction here – so unlike the prophets of old.
10) Live-streaming? Meh. Meh, indeed.
11) Biblical hand grenades. And yet these passages do have actual meaning and application. There are actual false teachers and there are itching ears. I think perhaps a common ground for us would be to characterize prosperity gospel and prosperity preachers as false teachers speaking to itching ears. True enough that we do well to first see how/if/where/when these warning apply to our own hearts first – that’s never a bad impulse.
12) It doesn’t work. “Fundamentalism” is such an easy bogeyman today as to be somewhat meaningless. It’s the “woke” charge of the left. One could almost call it a hand-grenade. “Your’re woke!” “Oh ya? Well, you’re a fundamentalist!” Ok, where did that get us? People here have regularly tossed the “fundamentalist” label at people like me in the CRC without knowing the first thing about us or really trying to understand our motivations and priorities – just dismissal. I can assure you that whatever I am, I am unequivocally not a “sin prevention” specialist. I exist to declare the grace and glory of God.
13) Three Qs. This is dangerous ground for me, so I won’t wade in deeply on the actual subjects – not the time or the place. But I think it is interesting to note a couple things about approach. This sounds to me like litmus testing, drawing boundaries, putting up walls, exclusion. It does not sound Centered-set, but rather Bounded-set. It doesn’t sound very unifying (think: High Priestly Prayer as hand grenade), or like you believe everyone is Better Together. It’s almost like groups have distinctive characteristics and beliefs and the ability to define those. It also doesn’t sound much like an embrace of diversity or listening to the voices from the global south. All of these things I have heard trumpeted from RJ and RJ-adjacent folks. Sometimes we find ourselves selective in acceptance of the reality that groups naturally have distinctive features and every group has boundaries, lest it be indecipherable as a group.
14) Is there equivalence? There are at least degrees of equivalence there.
15) Question for future synods: Yes and No. But you knew that.
16) Pick up the tab. This resonates.
17) Favorite recent quotes
a) Depends somewhat on what “the problem” is and how one defines and applies “fundamentalism”.
b) I’d be interested to know the last time the RCA recognized the Holy Scriptures as bursting out of their doctrinal standards, such that they no longer understood their doctrinal standards to be true to God’s Word. To say that one believes something “fully agrees” is not to say that something is completely settled or fully understood. It is rather to believe that with the community of believers over time and space we can come to proper (though incomplete) understandings of God’s Word, and that those understandings can and do stand against other understandings that we believe to be improper or deficient in some manner or degree. That Mr. Meeter is not comfortable with that level or characterization of agreement does not negate or disqualify the convictions or traditions of others.
c) I can’t follow this well as one who is not a devotee of poetry and one who does not think so well in the abstract.
Thanks for the opportunity to reflect on a wide range of topics.
Eric, too much to reply to here. But first I am grateful for your tone and your engagement. May it prosper among us all. I’ll reply to a few comments elsewhere, but on the mature Christian who stepped away from “sin prevention” what I found so interesting, powerful really, is that he has no desire or even much awareness of being woke or leftist or anything like that. But quite late in life, he realized sin prevention — rules, oughts, musts, heavy burdens, guilt — didn’t work. I’d add I don’t think he even intends or desires to sound “Reformed” — but simply that the grace of our Lord Jesus Christ is the Christian gospel.
Hi Steve. Thanks for your gracious reply. I am happy to hear of the revelation of this mature Christian – it is freeing to be a slave to Christ and not a slave to the law.
I am unaware why stepping away from “sin prevention” might be associated at all with being woke or leftist. I have lived my entire Christian life in Christian communities/settings that are not at all associated with wokism (be aware that I tend to loathe widespread or indiscriminate use of the term “woke”) or leftism. The communities that formed me and continue to nourish me are not at all focused on the sin prevention that you describe with rules, oughts, musts, heavy burdens, guilt, etc. I certainly have seen a lot of misperception that “conservative” (again a term I am not always comfortable using, but will use here for expediency) Christians major in this area, but find that such characterizations are typically ignorant, hostile, or a combination of the two.
I am fairly certain that those of a more “progressive” (if I may again be permitted a shorthand) can also identify areas in which they are misunderstood or misrepresented. It is part of my hope by engaging with you that I may avoid that trap, tendency, or temptation.
If I understand your “I’d be interested” sentence, I would point out that in the RCA Declaration for Ministers we testify that we hold the Standards as “Faithful and historic witnesses to” the Scriptures. And that carries a different import than the language of the CRC “Covenant for Office-bearers.”
Hi Daniel. Thanks for delving a bit deeper with me. You are not quite addressing what I was attempting to get at, which a likely consequence of me not speaking as clearly as is perhaps helpful. I’d note a few things in response.
1) I certainly recognize that there is a difference between the RCA and CRC language for officebearers covenanting before God and his people.
2) My “bursting out” reference was a mirror to that phrase used in your quote: “The Holy Scripture is always bursting out of our Doctrinal Standards.” I may have a misunderstanding of the picture you were painting with this statement, and particularly the phrase “busting out”. What I pictured was Scripture escaping from or not being accurately summed by the confessions in a manner that finds Scripture and the confessions to be at odds. That seemed implied by the bursting out phrase, but perhaps is not really what you were aiming for. In light of how I understood it, my “I’d be interested” statement was a broad inquiry into the history of the RCA to wonder when/if there has been a time when the RCA officially concluded that indeed the confessions did not faithfully reflect Scripture. I imagine there has been some doctrinal tinkering over the years, such as phrases being removed or softened (as has happened on occasion in the CRC). I was thinking more of a bursting out that might be more consequential, so as to alter in a more consequential way the historic doctrinal commitments of the RCA.
3) I think it is worth pondering just how different the “fully agree with” and “faithful witness to” phrases are. Certainly they are different in some ways, but the overlap is significant and consequential. In context it seems as though “faithful” should be defined as “true to the facts, to a standard, or to an original”. For the confessions to be true to Scripture they have to agree with Scripture. If they did not we would not find them to be a faithful witness. If indeed the confessions agree with Scripture we are left only with a modifier: “fully”. Now, if the confessions only partially agreed with Scripture, could we say that they are a faithful witness to Scripture, that they are “true to the standard” of Scripture? It would seem quite odd to me to say that something is faithful to the standard but does not fully agree with that standard. How different, in essence, are our declarations when we parse the language of those differing phrases? Now, I understand that there is a different polity behind these phrases – that certainly is true as well. But, as to what we stand and vow to believe, I struggle to see a substantive difference in what we are ourselves bearing witness to.
Hopefully this pulls back the curtain a bit more on how my mind was pondering your quote. Thanks again for engaging with me.
Eric, I’m thinking of the Word of God as first Our Lord, and second as the Word of his mouth, which is a two-edged sword (and how can any human thought or document be in full agreement with a two-edged sword?) and which is “living and active,” and third as the authorized and sufficient testimony and witness to Our Lord’s person and his Word by his sovereignly chosen prophets and Apostles, which we call Scripture. Scripture is sufficient, Scripture alone is sufficient. In every generation we too are called and responsible to bear witness, but our witness can contain but not “contain” that sword. For the RCA approach to the Standards and Scripture, see two Theology Commission reports to General Synod already decades ago: Minutes of the General Synod (accessible via rca.org), 1961: 386-387, and 1971: 211-215. The secondr eport states it better than I do.
Two more things: the RCA does not edit nor revise the Standards to keep them up to date (as if to keep them in agreement with what we think now!). And, the RCA Declaration is importantly NOT acovenant. Neither was the CRC’s, till this one was introduced. It’s not a small matter. In the RCA we don’t ground church unity on our keeping Covenant with each other. Neither did the old CRC. It is rather grounded in the demands of catholicity, the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. Covenant is subjective, and catholicity is objective.
Hi Daniel,
In that case the CRC and RCA approach are absolutely not different. The CRC does not in any way say that anything other than the Scriptures are sufficient. To say that the confessions fully agree with Scripture is to speak to their faithfulness, not their completeness. Neither does the CRC maintain that the confessions somehow contain the two edged sword – not even close.
You’ll forgive me for using “covenant” in the colloquial sense, which was perhaps unhelpful in this setting. The RCA asks the Minister to make a public “declaration”, contained in which the Minister says “I declare”, “I accept”, “I promise”, “I will”, “I pledge”, and then asks for accountability in all of that. In colloquial terms this is certainly covenantal language. I am glad to allow you to correct my terminology as it relates to RCA polity.
I would also note that the unity of the CRC is not grounded in covenant in the ultimate or sole sense. Certainly covenanting together is a manner in which we seek to keep ourselves unified, but we also do not deny nor despise the catholicity of the church nor do we eschew our stated (realized, inescapable) unity in Christ. In that manner our unity is multi-layered and not merely based on the subjectivity of a covenant, though we find covenant to be both biblical and helpful.
If I understand you correctly, in summary, is it proper to think of your description of “bursting out” of Scripture from the confessions to be indicative of the the far superior nature of Scripture as to its nature, its authority, its completeness, its incomprehensibility (in absolute terms)? If so, then again we will not find each other or our respective denominations to be in disagreement.
Steve,
Amen to all of these! Especially the 3 questions for churches wishing to join the RCA: let’s be honest from the start about who we are becoming.
Our church (Not RCA) does not currently have a full time Pastor. I’m on the committee to write up the definition of who our congregation is and what we are looking for in a Pastor. It gives me an entirely different view of “Ecumenical”. Love God above all and your neighbor as yourself…. Then the juggling begins! Thank you, Steve. Your insights resonant with me.
Be careful that you do not become too much like those you disagree with. There may be someone behind you trying to determine whether you belong or not.
re “siblings and kindred” – my pastor, instead of opening with “dear sisters and brothers”, starts with “dear friends”