The Problem of Communion: “Dialogue” and When to End It

The Christian Reformed Church is showing patience and persistence.

If you’ve paid attention to church politics for any length of time, you’ve seen it and probably far more than once. A heterodox faction asks for “dialogue” or “conversation” on their pet error. They used to ask for “holy listening” too, but I haven’t heard that one for a while. Perhaps even they realized how cringe that is. Anyway, the error could be in gender and sexuality; it could be on the nature of marriage; it could be in adherence to Critical Theory or some other variant of Marxism. Whatever the error, usually the real underlying error is lack of submission to Scripture and to the basics of The Faith. I’ll surely rant on that another day.

Anyway, we’re nice Christians and all that. So we listen; we dialogue and converse. Then a church for the first time this happens on whatever issue more or less says, “We’ve heard you and value you and appreciate all this conversation, but we as a church are going to stick with orthodoxy, thank you.”

But that doesn’t settle it. It never does. The heterodox come back and come back and badger and get more demanding through the years. Likely they will eventually create facts on the ground by openly defying church standards. One famous example was the illicit ordination of eleven women, the Philadelphia Eleven, in the Episcopal Church, in 1974. How those women conducted their lives afterwards revealed their rebellion went far deeper than the issue of women in Holy Orders. The same could be said for those now pushing alphabet issues or wokeness in the church.

In the face of perpetual dialogue, demands and defiance, a church has two choices: 1. say “No. And if you are not going to take no for an answer, you should repent of that or leave.” or 2. eventually give in by allowing the heterodoxy to be an option in the church. “Duel integrities” or “mutual flourishing” one might call it.

The thing is, if a church gives in to heterodoxy, any tolerance towards the orthodox will be temporary. Once the heterodox have enough power, they will suppress the orthodox. It is not for nothing that the late great Richard John Neuhaus promulgated Neuhaus’ Law: “Where orthodoxy is optional, orthodoxy will sooner or later be proscribed.”

I know I keep repeating that Law, but it is rather important to remember. No communion or tradition can be so smug as to think themselves exempt. Thirty years ago, who would have thought American evangelicalism would be so wrestling with error? Who would have thought the Church of Rome would have same-sex blessings? Who would think the Anglican Catholic Church would be shot through with Universalism? Not even the Orthodox are exempt from the danger of dialogue. Read this from back in 2018:

One could almost formulate a spiritual law that any site or online contribution which contains the D-word or its synonyms is pushing the same basic agenda. Take for example the site, “Orthodoxy in Dialogue” (with D-word prominently displayed) or the site “Public Orthodoxy” (which says that it “seeks to promote conversation by providing a forum for diverse perspectives on contemporary issues related to Orthodox Christianity”). Like other liberal sites these are dedicated to the destruction of traditional Orthodox belief and praxis. Obviously no site hoping to gain traction among fellow-Orthodox will advertise this agenda and goal. Like all deconstructionist movements, other softer terms must be found—usually using multi-syllabic words, which is almost always a bad sign….

The posture of tentative questioning was not sincere or honest, nor was the proffered dialogue genuine. In this dialogue, all the retreat and reconsideration was to flow one way. Those holding to the historic Orthodox position would retreat from it, while those holding to the new reconstructed position would not retreat. The deconstructionists had no doubt of the truth of their convictions; the only question was how to advance their agenda. One is reminded of the aphorism of JFK: “You cannot negotiate with those who say ‘What’s mine is mine and what’s yours is negotiable’”. As far as those committed to the reconstructed and revised order are concerned, their own convictions are not negotiable. It is the traditional Orthodox that are being invited to negotiate and to be willing to retreat from their positions.

Join the club, my long-bearded friends, join the club. Rod Dreher has and had quite a run-in with not-so-orthodox Orthodox back in 2020.

So healthy churches, while welcoming discussion with the goal of learning and piety, must not engage in perpetual “dialogue” with error within. At best, time and energy will be constantly devoted to beating back the errant, time and energy that could have been devoted to ministry and mission. More likely, the heterodox will eventually win the “dialogue,” sending your church into apostasy.

Neither is a viable way for orthodox churches. So eventually “dialogue” has to be brought to a conclusion with a firm “no” — actually with a firm “no or else.” Yes, that takes backbone and is not pleasant. But just about every church must do that at some point.

But it can be done. And this Anglican notes with gladness and maybe a little jealousy that the Christian Reformed Church (CRC) is getting it done. They were patient with the libs and their dialogue, maybe too patient. But they are firmly saying, “Enough.” From Juicy Ecumenism:

The CRC annual meetings, called synods, have held firm to the biblical and historic Christian position on marriage and sexuality despite a decade-long push to affirm same-sex behavior. Synod 1973 adopted a comprehensive report on homosexuality, concluding that “homosexual acts are sinful” and “Sex relations outside of marriage are forbidden in the Scriptures.”…

All One Body began advocating for full inclusion of LGBTQ sexuality in the church in 2011. In 2020, Neland Avenue CRC in Grand Rapids, Michigan decided that the 1973 report was merely “pastoral advice” and therefore not mandatory. Neland Avenue CRC ordained a deacon living in a same-sex marriage. [Facts on the ground as I mentioned earlier — Ed.] Following Neland Avenue’s action, a group of CRC pastors and leaders formed The Abide Project to stand for the biblical and historical position on marriage and sexuality in the CRC.

Votes at Synod 2022 were overwhelmingly on the side of orthodoxy…. By a vote of 123-53-2 synod affirmed that when the Heidelberg Catechism condemns “unchastity,” this includes “adultery, premarital sex, extra-marital sex, polyamory, pornography and homosexual sex.” As such, this understanding had “confessional status” and was binding on all officebearers. Synod 2022 also instructed Neland Avenue CRC to remove the deacon in a same-sex marriage by a vote of 134-43-1.

Revisionists in the CRC did not accept the outcome.

Of course, they didn’t. But they didn’t leave either. Neland Avenue and others stiffened their necks instead. Then another group pretended to be orthodox while making orthodoxy optional…

Another group emerged, calling itself “Better Together: A Third Way.” Their board included many well-known CRC leaders and their goal was to make same-sex marriage a matter for local churches to decide for themselves.

Ah yes. Third Wayism and local options — both of which usually means winsome apostasy or going apostate more slowly. But, again to their credit, the 2023 Synod said no. The revisionists remained stiff-necked. Finally, the 2024 Synod said, “NO or else” [emphasis mine]:

Synod 2024 maintained the course of the prior synods with overwhelming votes. Synod voted 137 to 47 (74.5%) that gravamina (complaints as the basis of a legal action) “are not meant, nor should be used as an exception to the confessions.” Synod voted 134 to 50 to instruct churches that have publicly contradicted synod decisions “on unchastity to repent and to honor their covenant commitments to the CRCNA.” The same resolution said, “all office-bearers from churches in non-compliance, by actions or in any form of media, be placed on a limited suspension” where officebearers could not be delegated to synod or to regional meetings ….”

Yes, it took a while. The CRC sure is more patient than I would be. And they are still exercising gentle restraint. But saying the equivalent of “NO or else” now seems to be bring this dialogue to an end.

Following Synod 2024, theological revisionists have begun to exit the CRC. Multiple congregations have made moves to depart, some by public announcement of intent to leave and some by officially submitting disaffiliation requests…

Read it all for more on the whiny departures. GROK informs me that among the congregations in the process of disaffiliating is the affirming Sherman Street CRC in Grand Rapids, where Kristin Du Mez is a member. Addition by subtraction as I see it.

Now even bad Christians like me would rather see repentance. One would rather see people submit to Biblical authority and correction and stay. But for the sake of the faithful, one cannot wait forever for repentance from errant leaders lest their error spread like gangrene. A smaller but more faithful church is better for all, including for the departing. They, too, have to be shown tangibly that there are boundaries of what is acceptable within the Church. There are boundaries to orthodox Faith.

The CRC has been courageous both in standing firm and in being patient. Their patience was risky though pastoral towards the errant. But to be pastoral to the faithful, one has to drive off the wolves. The CRC is now effectively doing just that. They are to be commended. And their good example of bringing “dialogue” to a decisive end is to be followed.

—

lead photo: An alphabet tent outside CRC’s 2023 Synod. Photo by Grace Buller