Onenigheid en spanning oor VIDA in die CRCNA | Pro Regno
Posted by: proregno | November 8, 2013
Onenigheid en spanning oor VIDA in die CRCNA
Sal twee met mekaar wandel tensy hulle eers afgespreek het? – Amos 3:3
“It is sin on the part of the CRC synod to promote unity apart from the theological conviction that only men may be ordained as office bearers. It is also sin to stay in the CRC on the part of those who are convicted that women’s ordination is unbiblical. It is good that they know that unity is impossible for them in a congregation or classis that allows women’s ordination. But when they stay in the CRC despite their theological disagreement with the denomination’s allowance of women’s ordination, they show themselves willing to accept the sham unity of unity in name only. The result is continued tension and disharmony in the CRC.”
Terwyl die GKSA van sinode tot sinode voort worstel oor wat om te maak met die drastiese kerkregering verskille (en die verskillende Skrifbeskouings daaragter) wat in ons midde leef, is dit goed om kennis te neem van wat in ander kerkverbande plaasvind wat reeds VIDA toegelaat het.
Die afvallige CRCNA (Christian Reformed Church in North America), met wie die GKSA kerklike eenheid het, het reeds in 1990 vroue in al die besondere ampte toegelaat met ‘n oproep om mekaar se ‘verskille daaroor te verdra’ …. maar dit bring nie vrede in die kerkverband nie, nie vir hulle wat vir of teen VIDA is nie, soos blyk uit die CRCNA se 2013 sinode.
Dit is goed om vir ‘n tyd te getuig en die ‘kerklike weg’ te volg (al vir 3 dekades?) teen die VIDA-kerkregering en Skrifbeskouing wat ons kerke binnegedring het, maar die gedagte onder regsinniges dat die blywende oplossing in die toekoms gaan wees:
– om na ‘n klassis te skuif waar nie saam regeer en geleer word met VIDA gemeentes nie, of
– om ‘n sogenaamde ‘anti-VIDA Gereformeerde Bond’ binne die kerkverband te begin sou VIDA volkome deur die algemene sinode van 2015 aanvaar word,
gaan nié vrede en eenheid oor die saak bring nie, soos die artikel hier onder deeglik aandui.
Nie net is VIDA ongehoorsaamheid aan God se Woord nie, maar dit bring net meer en meer onenigheid en verdeeldheid wat die Koninkryk van God laat skade lei, ook die ‘Omkeerstrategie’ wat nou so baie aandag kry.
Gaan die GKSA uit die lesse van die geskiedenis leer dat twee teenoorgestelde sienings van die Skrif en twee teenoorgestelde sienings van die kerkregering nie met mekaar kan saam wandel nie (Amos 3:3) ?
Of gaan ons soos die ander ‘susterskerke’ die weg van 2 Tim.4:3,4 volg, waar die stem van die regsinniges daar heeltemal stil geword het oor die VIDA dwalinge en nou maar op ander ‘issues’ fokus om te oorleef ?
The key to understanding this decision and its grounds is the CRC’s understanding of the women-in- office issue as an issue “of conscience.” The CRC refuses to view the women-in-office issue as an “either or” issue – eitherthe Bible forbids women in office or it doesn’t. Rather, the CRC maintains women-in-office is a “both and”issue – scripture can legitimately be interpreted both against and in favor of women’s ordination. The CRC refuses to grant, therefore, that opposition to women in office is grounded on the correct interpretation of scripture. The opposition to women in office cannot claim that the issue is a matter of faithfulness to the Bible. Both sides are faithful to scripture. Both sides ought to be able to accept that the other side is holding to a correct interpretation of scripture. If an opponent to women’s ordination cannot accept the other view, his objection cannot be based on scripture but is merely a matter of an overly sensitive conscience.
The CRC is committed to the idea that people who fall on both sides of the issue should be able to live together in harmony in the same congregation, classis, and denomination. Does that mean that those who are in favor of women’s ordination should be silent and happily accept a situation in which their congregation won’t ordain women, that they should be silent and happily accept that classis and synod won’t allow women delegates? No, it means that those who are opposed to women in office should be silent and happily remain members when their congregation installs women office bearers, and be silent and happy when women delegates show up at classis and synod. Even if you are convinced that it is contrary to scripture, the conservatives are told, you shouldn’t have a problem if it is a woman who hands you the collection plate, administers to you the sacrament of the Lord’s Supper, or stands before you in the pulpit.
This thinking is the basis of the CRC’s refusal to allow the formation of a classis that is made up of churches opposed to women in office. Those churches should not have any problem enjoying unity with churches that practice women’s ordination.
It is noteworthy that the CRC admits in this decision that it does not believe unity requires uniformity of “theological conviction.” This is an admission that the CRC believes that unity can be enjoyed without agreement on the truth. There is a difference between unity and uniformity. Absolute uniformity means sameness in all things. Absolute uniformity is not necessary for unity. For example unity does not require the same ethnicity, gender, etc. But in one area there is a need for uniformity – that is in the area of the truth. Of course it is true there is freedom to interpret scripture in different ways where the meaning is not clear to us (although our interpretation must always be in harmony with our Reformed confessions). But where scripture’s teaching is clear there must be uniformity of conviction. And scripture’s clear condemnation of women in office means that there is only unity when there is a uniformity of conviction that women’s ordination is unbiblical.
The CRC’s contention that unity is possible when there is disagreement on the issue of women’s ordination is wrong. The congregations that want uniformity of conviction in the classis that women’s ordination is unbiblical are correct.
However, in ground “c” above, the CRC synod demonstrates a grave and embarrassing error in the thinking of the two congregations that requested the formation of a new classis. Synod made a very keen insight when it said, “The creation of such a classis may address the issues of conscience and the discomfort of protesting the presence of women officebearers at the classical level, but this does not resolve those same issues at thesynodical level.” This ground rightly argues that the formation of an “affinity classis” will not change the fact that these congregations will have to live in a denomination that does not share its theological convictions. Thus the synod exposes the shortsighted thinking of those who are opposed to women’s ordination yet remain in the CRC. For years they have wanted theological agreement (read unity) in their own congregations with regard to women’s ordination – perhaps we can call them “affinity congregations.” Now they want theological agreement on this issue in the classis – an “affinity classis.” From a classis where they do not have this affinity they are ready to withdraw! But what about an “affinity denomination?” Obviously they are not so concerned about denominational unity. From a denomination that promotes the unbiblical practice of women’s ordination, in which they do not have unity with many congregations and classes, they will not withdraw! The CRC’s decision implies, and rightly so, that any congregation that is willing to live in a denomination that accepts women in office ought also to be willing to live in a classis that accepts women in office. Indeed these congregations should even be willing to live with women office bearers in their own church.
The synod’s thinking in ground c is correct. The only way to escape the wicked practice of women’s ordination is to withdraw from the Christian Reformed denomination. And anyone who is willing to stay in the CRC (thereby accepting women in office on a denominational level) should drop the issue and allow women’s ordination everywhere, including in their own congregations. There is no unity or peace available in the CRC for those who oppose women’s ordination.
The obvious irony is that although the CRC won’t allow the creation of a so-called “affinity classis” such classes already exist in the CRC. There is added irony when one considers that it was the 1995 synod that encouraged the creation of “affinity classes.” That synod gave to each classis the right to declare the word male“inoperative” in the church order article that speaks of the qualifications for officebearers. That decision made every classis in the CRC an “affinity classis.” After each classis made a decision to drop or keep the word male, the CRC was made up of what we could call A and B classes. The congregations in the A classes agree (affinity) that women may not be ordained. The congregations in the B classes agree (affinity) to allow and practice women’s ordination. Having created a situation in which there are A and B classes, the CRC has decided it won’t allow the creation of a new A classis, but it will begrudgingly allow two congregations in B classes to move to A classes.
Posted in crcna, gksa, gksa sinode 2012, kerklike eenheid, prca, VIDA Kategismus, vrou-in-die-ampte
« Preke uit 1 Korinthiërs: “maar God het laat groei” (1 Kor.3 en die Omkeerstrategie)
Preek: Ware verootmoediging – Jer.7:1-15 »