We could respond to the above question by simply saying that we must always act in a loving manner, and we always need to call to repentance as the occasion requires. This isn’t really a matter of one or the other.
Synod 2024 will be taking up many details that pertain to discipline. One is an overture requesting that Eastern Ave. CRC be disciplined for baptizing the infant daughter of two women in November 2023.
At the classis meeting to which this overture was submitted for approval, an objection was raised that discipline needs to follow the steps of Matt. 18. The objection assumed that the overture was written without the congregation personally contacting Eastern Ave. CRC. While it is always important, especially with controversial matters such as this, that all steps be taken in a loving, Christ-like, scriptural manner, is this a valid reason to oppose such an overture?
To determine the answer to that question there are four things that should be considered.
1) Even though members of the congregation that have written this overture were not included, concerned members of the CRC have met personally with members of Eastern Ave. and Classis Grand Rapids East.
2) We are no longer at the starting gate of this issue concerning the acceptance of same-sex relationships. In 2016 Classis Grand Rapids East issued a report that raised this topic in a very prominent way. That same year synod mandated a five-year study committee that studied human sexuality. Based on the conclusions of that study, Synod 2022 then required an in loco committee be formed in order to work with Neland Ave. and Classis Grand Rapids East on this topic of same-sex relationships. It is clear, based on these actions, initial steps have already been taken.
3) Article 30 of the church order reads, “Assemblies and church members may appeal to the assembly next in order if they believe that injustice has been done or that a decision conflicts with the Word of God or the Church Order.” So, according to church order, the appropriate step for a congregation to take in an event like this is to send an overture on to its classis and the classis, if in agreement, will submit it to synod.
4) The wording of Matt. 18 must also be considered. In verse 15 we read, “If your brother sins against you, go and tell him his fault, between you and him alone.” Eastern Ave. CRC has not sinned against the specific congregation that wrote the overture, they have sinned against the denomination. Therefore, it is only fitting that the denomination should handle it.
Consider this: for thousands of years the world-wide church has held that the practice of homosexuality is sinful. Since the penning of the first books of the Bible, homosexual acts have been identified as sinful. In the CRC itself, 50 years ago in 1973 and especially at the last two synods, decisions have been made that confirm that. But the CRC has been presented with a congregation that is officially embracing a sinful practice. As a confessional church, we in the Reformed tradition promise to uphold our confessions. If we come to disagree with some part of the confessions, we promise to identify that to the denomination. Rather than submitting an overture stating why they believe that baptism referenced above should be practiced and submitting it to the denomination to consider it, it can be said that Eastern has chosen rather to simply go rogue. This is a blatant violation of their commitment to the CRC.
Consider these words from Dietrich Bonhoeffer which are very helpful in this regard:
“Nothing can be more cruel than the tenderness that consigns another to his sin. Nothing can be more compassionate than the severe rebuke that calls a brother back from the path of sin.” (Emphasis added.) (Life Together, 107).
What Are Our Real Options?
When it comes to considering an overture asking the denomination to discipline Eastern Ave. CRC because of the baptism of a baby of a same-sex couple, we are now faced with three options. First, if there is a more loving way of dealing with Eastern Ave., such as contacting them first and then, if necessary writing an overture, that would be doing what Bonhoeffer considers compassionate. Anyone who claims to know of a more loving way to respond to Eastern is obligated, from our denominational commitment to Eastern, to take steps to help in this situation. Second, if it is considered that the first step of Matthew 18 has been met and one writes an overture for the sake of helping Eastern Ave. to see the error of its way, that, according to Bonhoeffer would be considered compassionate. Third, to not take any steps toward helping Eastern Ave. and to vote against an overture which seeks to help Eastern Ave. is to not do anything to help the situation and is what Bonhoeffer considers cruel. In case there should be any question concerning whether or not repentance is needed, consider the following. All office bearers promise to abide by synodical decisions. Two synods have now clearly stated that homosexual acts are sinful. Since Eastern believes they are right to baptize the infant, they are obligated to not baptize the infant until they submit an overture to synod explaining how that baptism would be biblical. Should synod agree with them, then they could baptize the child. To baptize such a child before convincing synod is to violate their promises and is something that requires repentance.
To insist on the first option above to the exclusion of the second, it would need to be shown that personal contact is in fact mandatory in this situation. Does church order require that? Does Scripture require that? As noted, Eastern Ave. has gone against the denomination, not other congregations per se. To go with the third option is to engage in an act of omission, to not do anything about the fact that Eastern Ave. has gone against specific and clear denominational statements. It has also gone against scriptural teaching. Is there any way the first or the third options above are in fact viable options? If so, please explain how that is the case in the associated blog.
Substantive, appropriate responses are welcome and may be shared with the broader audience via an email like this one.
10 replies on “Overture re Eastern Ave. CRC 2024: Act Lovingly or Call for Repentance?”
Thank you for this good summary and response, Herb. It is clear and concise. Often, Matthew 18 is misapplied. The context is a brother (sister) who sins against another brother (sister). The church (elders) are only brought in down the line. In other words, this is an ecclesial matter, not a personal one. It is handled differently.
If we could apply this personal process to ecclesial matters, the first step of Matthew 18 is to make the brother aware they have sinned – and that you believe they have sinned against you. That step, as you’ve noted, has taken place long ago. The second step would be to bring along another person and confront the sinner. That too has happened long ago and repeatedly. The third step would to take it to the elders. Here’s where it’s clunky… but since the elders/Council of EACRC are the offending party, they would be the “brother who sinned” in steps one and two. The Classis would be the next broader assembly. Does the one who brings it to classis be the one who completes steps 1 and 2 personally? Since we are talking ecclesially and not personally, there is a corporate action here. So even following a Matthew 18 principle, it seems this appeal is right on track and Classis EGR was wrong in rejecting it.
As an Eastern member, I would suggest to you that an infant child of a confessing member should be embraced by all members of the church family as Jesus would. There are many more verses recommending love than punishment. How sad that all the time and energy spent on condemning the pet “sin” of the CRC currently is not spent on caring for the widows and poor and other things that Jesus did.
Mary, in this rather brief statement it sounds like you have a heart for helping people. That is good. That kind of thing is needed in all churches, all the time.
The issue at stake, though, is not whether an infant child of a confessing member out to be baptized. No one in the CRC is objecting to that. The issue is also not that energy should not be spent on taking care of widows and the poor. That, too, must be done.
The issue in front of us is the matter that same-sex relationships are a matter of sexual immorality. This is not a CRC pet sin. This is something that is facing all Christian churches right now. The church owes answers to people who are same-sex attracted. If you or others at Eastern Ave. believe the practice of same-sex relationships is good, please, help others of us in the CRC to understand that. In addition to the many works Christ did, He also, through the Spirit, strongly promoted that Christians should strive to be of like mind. That, too, is very important.
Thank you, Herb. This is a timely and much needed balance to the uninformed wish-filled ecclesiology of so many in the CRC. The point that Matt 18 is not being fulfilled is an ironically slavish interpretation of the text. Of course, Neeland has been approached and reprimanded, which is the point of the text. To claim that some sort of individual approach must be made by the framers of the overture is strains the meaning of the text, as if Jesus’s point was that an individual case must map perfectly onto a corporate case, which is not possible. However, when it comes to other clear teaching on homosexuality, many of those same people begin to not only hesitate to apply the passages at all, but for all intents and purposes, ignore them.
The whole approach needs changing to one of inquiry into the arguments. After all we hold that the council is original on authority.
Do we disagree on our reasons? Let us explore the reasoning.
The Council is original, but we are not Baptist/congregational churches, but rather are united in covenant with one another, and our broader assemblies of Classes and Synod holding legitimate delegated authority!
“But Jesus said, Suffer little children, and forbid them not, to come unto me: for of such is the kingdom of heaven” (Matthew 19:14).
“You hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother’s eye” (Matthew 7:5)
Sheryl, you and I have never met. We have never talked. At best we have only exchanged comments on blogs like this. You do not state it explicitly, but I take your comment to mean I have a plank in my eye and therefore cannot see clearly. We don’t know each other at all, yet, you are able to discern that I am in error in a serious way? Is it reasonable to even think that would be possible?
Or, is it the case that everyone who does not agree with you has a plank in their eye?
The actual people who are forbidding the child to come to Christ are the undisciplined two women who brought the child forward for baptism. By association the consistory is also in grave err. The child should not have been baptized. The baptism should have been postponed until the two women had been counseled and convinced to reject their sin and live grateful and sanctified lives. Members under discipline who are rebellious and practicing a libertine, “cheap grace” lifestyle which denies the power of the atonement to change our lives toward Christian obedience are not to be allowed to participate in the sacraments. In a spirit of love and grace they need to be guided to accept the cost of discipleship which is not cheap. Certainly, sexual purity is included in that cost. The bifurcation of love or repentance is not valid. It presents a false problematic. The question should be a statement which is both love and repentance. We must apply both love and repentance in this situation.
Regarding Matthew 7:5, this passage should not be used to diminish the need for holiness. Christ gave us the true meaning of the law in the Sermon on the Mount. He wants us to deny ourselves, take up our cross and follow him. A life which is lived under the pretext of “doing it my way” is not a life of discipleship. Christians all have to identify their own sin and strive against it. That implies costly, humble and difficult decisions and actions. We are not talking about dividing the sinners from the saints. We are all both.
If the case where a heterosexual couple unmarried wanted their baby baptized what would be the procedure. I am curious.
Thank you