Statement For Overture 20 – We Need To Delay So More Studying Can Be Done
.
Statement: Local Discernment Can Bear Healthier Fruit And Helps Avoid The False Idol Of Certainty
Overture 20 contains the following statement about local discernment:
Local discernment can bear healthier fruit on some vulnerable, contentious matters because it is harmful to remove the “particulars” of an individual’s story to create a “universal rule” in our quest for the false idol of certainty. (Page 403.)
Response
Does the above statement mean that what is right for one person may not be right for another? Could same-sex marriage be good in God’s eyes for one person and not for another? If this approach is considered valid then it seems like we would likewise need to say that adultery and fornication are sometimes acceptable, depending on the person’s circumstances. Are we saying that an individual’s circumstances can make a sin acceptable? How can the particulars of one individual have a bearing on this? Rather than only stating this approach in general terms, it would be very helpful if the authors of Overture 20 would provide an example which would show what they are referring to.
Dr. Brownson would claim that the answer to the above questions is that what is natural (good) for one person is not natural for another person. However, after extensive study this claim was not found to be biblical.
As far as a universal rule is concerned, isn’t it true that both those for same-sex marriage and those opposed to it are in pursuit of a universal rule? Don’t those in favor of same-sex marriage want loving, monogamous same-sex marriages to be accepted by the entire Christian church? If the CRC or the RCA accepted same-sex marriage as biblical, wouldn’t that be a universal rule?
The reference to the “false god of certainty” seems peculiar. Why are matters of certainty bad? When the church states that Christ’s sacrifice on the cross saves sinners, isn’t that a matter of certainty? Again, could the authors of Overture 20 expound on this so that it can be understood better?
Conclusion
In order to fully consider this point it will be necessary to consider specifics. When it is limited to a statement of generalities it is not possible to fully comprehend what is being referred to here. Therefore, in order for this point to be a valid reason to call for more study beyond synod 2022 it needs to be developed further. As it stands it is too vague to support the overture’s recommendation.
2 replies on “Overture 20: For Local Discernment”
“Local discernment” strikes me as “anything goes, if we agree to it in our community.” Nowhere in Scripture, or in any logical construct, can such a concept have any credibility. Would this mean that an impoverished community would not look unkindly on small acts of theft and larceny, because earning enough money to afford to eat is very difficult? “Local discernment” would simply be rationalization away from hard truths and unpleasant requirements.
Local discernment is a way to justify an interpretation of Scripture that complies with the pressure put on the church by the world , instead of influencing the world the church is caving in to political correctness. Nieland Ave. actions preamps the discussion on this issue, either they have no regard for synodical authority or they assume a forgone conclusion. Either one falls outside the authority of a local church council.