An Update on the RCA’s “Special Council”

Thank you, Cameron. It must have been hours of listening.

I helped write the report of the Commission on History, about the RCA’s thirty years of overtures and resolutions on gay issues coming before General Synod for votes, (up, rewritten, or down) — stretching back to 1972, which appeared as part of our report to the 2012 General Synod. Given our history I doubted that 84 people in one hotel for one weekend could come up with one answer, because in my experience, few of our committees gathered in this way actually understand church polity as they unpack their bags and get their coffee and sit down in groups.

I am not surprised that the report will contain three answers, not one. One of these answers could involve trying to change the BCO (Book of Church Order — rules about how power is distributed). But such a change is very arduous and probably doomed, if its efforts would be to achieve top-down enforcement of an anti-gay agenda throughout all the 48 classes of the RCA. But the other two “answers” or recommendations, no matter what they entail, will be essentially toothless, if they do NOT change the BCO. If we don’t change the BCO, then we are headed forward by a better path — keep talking and studying and carrying on dialogue over the many issues that are attached to the rights of gay persons.. However, that kind of “keep talking and keep reading” stance is not what most of the malcontents who were demanding, who asked for such a commission to meet. And regardless of what the answers are, I heard many people at Synod 2015 who felt the same as Donald Trump did when he said to the reporters, that “the Americans don’t want to hear any more about your damn emails.” And she laughed, and so did he. RCA people in many places are sick and tired of the topic and if there is one thing they believe, it’s that a “one-issue religion” where all faith hinges on just one narrow concern, is empty. Still this is not one issue, but touches on so many key things. So my thoughts:

Yes, one of the theoretical three ways forward is for General Synod to pass a change in the BCO so that classes no longer control discipline of their members, as they do now. But even if GS 2016 passed such an incredible thing, it would not become law — it would only be one step of a three step process. One General Synod in one yearly meeting cannot change the BCO, even if it were unanimous. This function of discipline cannot so easily be moved up the ladder in a hierarchy so that someone in Grand Rapids or on a Regional Synod police officer will come around to seek uniformity on an anti-gay agenda in the churches. But even if it could be done in one swift move by this Synod, it wouldn’t be. In fact, the RCA has moved the other way. In the past, when Norman Kansfield was booted out of his seminary presidency, one General Synod (2005) could do that, in one session, boom, he’s out. But the next General Synod moved rather quickly to close a loophole, so that from now on, seminary professors and presidents, like all other clergy, are disciplined only through a classis, and not by General Synod directly. We “fixed” the hole in the boat by plugging it and placing that invisible classis protective shield around seminary professors and presidents, just as it stands around all missionaries, chaplains, clergy, elders (and members) in the denomination. All the above now “report” to a classis, and not directly to a higher body. A lesson was learned, and now, all the poultry — roosters, hens, and little chicklets, are all in the henhouse of the classis protection, and cannot so easily be picked off by a General Synod attacking directly, that has the direct power to drive somebody out or create a disciplinary action. One Synod toppled Kansfield. But that cannot happen again, so, what’s next?

Seminary professors in particular have extra cushioning, as the GS 15 showed. When the anti-gay voices wished to discipline a Western Seminary professor over a book he wrote on homosexuality, the overture was ruled out of order because if a book or publication involves hermeneutics (i.e. interpreting Scripture) it cannot be challenged in a judicial proceeding. The seminary professor was safe because GS does not interpret scripture for others. This goes all the way back to the first Synods of the denomination in colonial days, when John Henry Livingston pointed out that a clergyman did not need classis approval of what he intended to publish. And by inference, that meant only a classis could have deterred a pastor in the first place — not a bishop, pope, or officer of the church. So did any seminary professor ever write any book that did not involve hermeneutics? I doubt it. They do not need Synod pre-approval, and there are no Synod censors, and they cannot be attacked by classes or judicial actions over their expressions of scholarly opinions based on interpreting scripture. So in the end, the attack served to give professors more secure flak jackets than they may have felt before.

This permit to disagree historically in our church became noisy and troublesome at times, but necessary. In slavery days Reformed Church elders and pastors were publishing works on both sides of the issue; nobody was punished or suppressed or disciplined for saying God loves slavery, or God hates slavery. Our classis based structure was a good thing, in troubled times. And yes, there WAS dispute on slavery within the RCA; the Synod of 1861 met while Sumter was fired upon, and they took a vote about whether to support Lincoln’s call to war; the delegates voted support for Lincoln by a bare 2/3 majority. Technically that was about whether Congress should respond with force to the attack on Sumter, but in a larger sense it was sort of “about slavery.” Each classis lived with dissent in its own way. New York classis in particular contained people who wanted to avoid war at all costs. So the first “answer” in the present turmoil –to strip classis of their exclusive right to discipline — and thus to give General Synod or its various arms more powers to discpline and punish, is highly unlikely to happen. Nobody to date has actually succeeded in loosening or getting rid of the powerful idea that classis holds most of the key powers, not a hierarchy. I really do not see that this committee would even propose to undermine classis authority and if they did, the classes would wake up from their snooze if needed, and kill it at stage 2. The classis is like a dog at the door of a henhouse. He may sleep most of the time but, if a wolf comes near the henhouse ready to attack, he wakes up and is dangerous.

The other two choices would have to be “don’t propose change the BCO because you can’t get the votes” so, continue to work on just persuasion — influencing the views of people but don’t ask anyone to change and don’t force restrictions on the personal choices of anyone or trample the rights of congregational consistories. T
his answer is basically “keep talking and maybe some light will dawn on you.”

So where we stood at the end of Synod 2015 is that the same old rules apply: In order for anyone to curb congregations or clergy from permitting gay weddings, or hiring gay staff, or other steps to express their views of the gospel — some authority needs to be empowered higher up, to restrict classes in matters of discipline, ordination and hiring. Right now the BCO excludes any interference with that. And that is solidly re-confirmed in several recent decisions. The opponents know this is what they need to change, but, so far, the actual power grab has eluded them.

If one Synod can’t change the BCO, how does it get changed? To change the BCO takes a three step process that allows time and a lot of means of making sure there is very broad support throughout the whole denomination and at lay and clergy levels. Once a specific overture is written, it takes one Synod to pass it, then requires a separate, classis by classis referendum getting 2/3 of the 48 classes on board, and if that succeeds, then thereis still one more, third step — ratification by a second General Synod. It’s like three big locks on the door, seeking the popular will, and tending to keep the BCO free of change based on passions or whim or a faction. Given the contention over this issue, it would likely take at least a year to circulate a proposal that Synod might pass to the 48 classes and get a poll. Then to go to a new Synod with that same, word for word proposal, would be done, no changes, no amendments at this point or we start the whole thing over. So we would be at Synod 2017, 2018 and maybe 2019, would we not think, to do all this if BCO change is attempted? To change the BCO you need very broad consensus over a period of time and three different ratification steps.

So, given only the softer two answers and NOT a change in the BCO, the answer is that gay stances or policies on any of the 15 or 20 related issues can only be enforced locally. A classis cannot easily correct or restrain a consistory they feel is out of line, except within their own classis and by more than a simple majority. Authority to rule others outside one’s classis boundaries is lacking — other than through agencies of GCS such as the Church Growth outfit people, Yes, Synod’s ongoing, bureaucratic and executive agencies can do a lot to encourage or discourage certain actions or policies, but, they are only agencies, not the underlying authority. And they should be and can be controlled, if General Synod at any time fires the General Secretary, or calls for resignations, or specifically redirects, or de-funds, any specific arm of the General Council.

Today the most harsh suppression going on may be in the Church Growth arena. The Church Growth people, who are supposed to rely upon the authority of a classis in all cases, withdrew $20,000 from New Brunswick Classis a few years ago in order to deter them from keeping Rev. Ursula Cargill on the church plant staff. But the classis bravely replaced the $20,000 from their own pocket and retained Cargill by doing without the extra money from outside. The classis was upset. (A motion to withhold their member assessments from the denomination to the tune of $20,000 to replace the lost funds was narrowly defeated; loyalty was strained but held up. But repeated actions like this would eventually bring outright rebellion in money terms) . Thus, even this money punch in the stomach by the visiting officials of the CGF could not accomplish suppression, and that was the ONLY club in hand. All procedural efforts to get Cargill out have failed. If you doubt this, notice that Rev. Ursula Cargill has been a target of the anti-gay clusters in the church for at least five to seven years, across many different strategies, both in Synod overtures, judicial actions, and in actions by the CGF, but so far, they have found no way to “get” her. The reason is that New Brunswick Classis, (of which my husband was a member for over 20 years, past president for a term, served on the team that examined her, and chair of its diversity committee) stuck to their guns and is bullet-proof because of the BCO. They took Ursula under care at least ten years ago, and about five years ago, appointed her to a staff role in a church plant in Plainfield, NJ. a very diverse urban area. She has served well there ever since. New Brunswick Classis has been like the gingerbread man — you can’t catch them, because they followed correct procedure in taking her under care, and in examining her, and BCO stands in the way of actions by one classis or church challenging or indicting a faraway classis or church. New Brunwick classis dealt with a review by the regional synod on this matter, and was found not at fault. When her appointment was first challenged within the classis, the vote was about 40 for her and 4 against. The four nay-sayers who are in the classis were very persistent and have repeatedly appealed to higher bodies including the regional synod and judicial committee of General Synod, but, New Brunswick Classis was affirmed once again, in the GS 2015. All means of upsetting this have been exhausted and Cargill is still standing. So the next hope of those who want her out, is that the commission might come up with a “constitutional” (begging the question) way to change the SYSTEM, for them to “get” her with new weapons not found in the current BCO, and to get other classes and leaders in the denomination who are quietly and in decent order, lifting the systematic exclusion of gay persons from leadership.

No one can tell at this point whether the move by a group on the Hope College Board of Trustees was prompted in part by wanting President Knapp to not endorse gay leadership, or not. Knapp has denied that the problem related to any religious or social issue. But some readers find the timing peculiar and are afraid Knapp is perceived as leading the college toward openness they do not want to endorse. Knapp however could not be fired by the General Synod. Only the Board of Trustees of Hope College could do that, and if they did, the college could come under question as to their accreditation with national agencies if they fired a president without consultation and involvement of faculty and students, especially since Hope is under watch by the accreditors for lack of diversity.. For now we will assume the fracas at Hope College is unrelated and is academic in nature as Knapp has said, and not issue related.

We don’t need inside information or advance review to know what Cameron has indicated in his very discreet advance report: the logical answers are: 1) do nothing to change authority in the RCA but recognize that we cannot construct a policing arm and keep the denomination from flying apart, AND 2) advise congregations to study the whole issue more and hope for further dialogue, while removing all material that calls homosexuality a sin and all references to aversion therapy from RCA publications, OR ELSE, 3) do try to change the BCO, with language and enforcement plans. To satisfy the parties the proposal must in some way do all of the following in some doable way: prohibit clergy from doing gay weddings, and prohibit RCA classes from taking gay clergy under care, or churches from hiring gay staff, and prohibit the election of gay elders in congregations, or prohibit renting space to or holding welcoming events for gay persons and discourages parishioners with gay offspring from asking them to be married by RCA clergy, or prohibit consistories from offering their pastors discretion in what marriages they will perform, and prohibit consistories from allowing their sanctuaries ever to be used for same sex unions. Whew, that’s a long list and it still doesn’t cover other subjects! Like whether a gay-related movie could be shown to the youth, for discussion not lectures, or whether a gay child can be excluded from the Boy Scout troop that is sponsored by your church. In short, there is no way to write in enough prohibitions, to be able to effectively stop this movement toward openness in some kind of blanket way, and thus to satisfy those who want to stop the trend. Churches are becoming more open. That is the way of the future.

As we speak, the more open churches across the denomination are exercising their rights to do all of the above, as none of them are currently prohibited in an compulsory way. No one is able to stop them. That’s why the anti gay factions are so frustrated! Think about it. Rules are only passed to stop things that are happening. If we propose a rule that elephants cannot cross the streets without their trainers, that means elephants are crossing the streets without their trainers and this is perceived as harmful. There are no elephants running loose in RCA-land. But trying to stop gay weddings from happening with the direct or indirect help and blessing of people in the RCA is like trying to pass a rule that deer can’t run across country roads at night because it causes harm to cars. It’s happening. But, can a rule at this point stop it???? How would we do that? Take gay weddings. How do we stop gay weddings or election of gay persons to consistories, from slipping across the roads of the churches in the RCA? Have an office in Grand Rapids set up with an officer who has a salary, and medical and dental plan, and a retirement fund, whose job it is to review all the applications for weddings and all the consistory nominations in the 900 Reformed Churches, and make sure no applications are accepted by pastors of churches, from gay couples? Okay suppose that could be done. But, what about the chaplains? They do weddings too. They don’t do most of their weddings in churches, because they generally work on campuses, or in hospitals, prisons and so forth. About 100 ordained RCA chaplains are under care of classes, but, they don’t have consistories advising them. They have discretion at the will of their classis. At least, that’s how my husband John did hundreds of weddings over his years at Robert Wood Johnson Hospital. Did the classis, or the officer in Grand Rapids need to collect an application form from every couple for whom my chaplain husband performed a wedding? Well if so maybe we need more than one officer in Grand Rapids to handle all this paper for a thousand clergy plus 100 chaplains plus a bunch of retired clergy and also some ordained retired missionaries out there, doing weddings each year. . And what about the hetero weddings that are irregular or should be refused? A hetero couple once asked my husband to marry them but asked him not to mention God in the ceremony. Surely in Grand Rapids they should patrol for this type of atheist hetero wedding, if we are NOT going to work with pastoral discretion about faithful gay weddings, but call for review boards. Did we review papers for all those inter-racial and interfaith weddings he did? No, we have pastoral discretion, and most classes and consistories would rather eat their hat than go to all the extra meetings that would be needed if we want to re-construct ecclesiastical courts in that fashion. We got rid of such review boards in the 1500s with the Reformation. Do we really want to set that all up again and pay for it? Because if not, then we have pastoral discretion as our guideline. One reason we require so much education for ordination is because RCA pastors have a lot of discretion on a relative basis. Passing a rule intended as a rule, that you cannot enforce undermines the church. Asking pastors to strictly apply a rule for gay persons that you just made up yesterday, when the marriage is entirely legal, might be of two practicing Christians, and the pastors have full pastoral discretion with regard to all those hetero weddings, and the “no gays” rule is also a rule they disagree with, is not wise or fair. Passing a law that a majority of the people you serve disagree with is foolish especially when it runs contrary to the law of the land. And to my eye, looking at 2015 Synod, there is generally NOT a 2/3 majority in Synod for anti gay positions, or for stripping classis of its role.

Where are all these gay couples who are applying to Reformed Churches for their marriages? The truth is, unless the church in question is already welcoming, as a whole, they are already asking other churches, not us — and joining and supporting other churches, not ours. But the eyes of the public are upon us with certain visible signs of acceptance and openness. For every gay wedding we do not perform, these days children are often brought into a family life, and the parents often do take them to Sunday schools and churches — but not ours. Pews get filled, but not ours. What are we accomplishing??? Are we not looking for new young families with children in tow to fill our pews? My sister and her partner have found welcome in a UCC church where they live in Massachusetts. They are very active there. Both are over 70. One day they will leave a legacy. Are we not looking for the life legacies of older gay persons who have RCA roots but, couldn’t find acceptance in our church? They had a wedding, at which I read the Scripture. They had a minister perform the ceremony, just not an RCA minister. They are married, in the eyes of the state of Massachusetts. I’m an elder in a Reformed Church today, soas an elder in a church, should I be disciplined for having participated in a gay wedding that was legal and was not in a Reformed Church? Maybe? Who can the RCA punish? Well you could discipline me, as an elder in an RCA church who participated in a gay wedding, but, where would that get the RCA? One more legacy lost, that’s where. The application of any these proposed specifics turns quickly into a nightmare of losing people we need.

I’m still here in the RCA advocating reason and humility and acceptance. My sister is not. You can’t get the talents or the legacy back that is going to another church. But for people coming up there is still time. Today it’s no longer my sister’s problem that the RCA has not yet fully welcomed gay persons and many members still wish to disparage their marriage. She’s 75, happy in marriage for the first time I can remember, and in a church and she’s well off and she’s got her will in order. It’s the RCA’s problem. Especially if the RCA doesn’t even know who they’re missing.

The ugly efforts to persecute Ursula Cargill have been spooky and surreal. However I like to look on the positive side. So far the RCA has never endorsed a simple minded anti-gay position on any question. The “definition of marriage” that one Synod passed does not have compulsory status, IT is NOT obligatory on members — right now, thus, we don’t need to change it. We do have ordained clergy and chaplains on our rosters today who are gay. We have had college and seminary professors who are gay and they are not currently being harassed. The seminary professor challenged in 2015 for his book did not even get a wrist slap. The anti gay factions in the RCA could not “get” Ursula Cargill in the past ten or fifteen years of persistently trying, so it’s probably too late now. The call for the 84 member council in a way was a panic move for help by people who have lost their cause. They want more ammunition. But, the church has yet to actually empower them more. And I don’t think that the answers from the group of 84 are going to be all that they wanted, and in order to have that power, they needed a LOT more power than they have.

We in the RCA have a large question to answer: what role do we have in ministering to the needs of gay persons? Gay persons — and by this I mean LGBT — do have choices today – where they will live, where they will worship, where they will spend time and money. For example, even in Holland Michigan, gay couples today are able to marry in a Reformed sanctuary — not in every Reformed church, and not on Hope’s campus, and not without counseling and showing faith, but, they can be married in a Reformed Church. Today to be married in an RCA church, it’s just a question of shopping churches, not leaving the denomination, and some of that has taken place. That is a good thing. But how many are trying? HOw many are casting their lot with the RCA? And there are RCA affiliated clergy who are willing, on a selective and counseled basis, to marry same sex persons and they will not be disciplined by their classis or their congregation. It is not something that can be suppressed.

My husband, who passed away in December, 2015, performed one gay wedding during his pastorate in New Jersey, and had no need to apologize to his classis. The wedding was not in a church, and the partners were not of members of any Reformed Church, nor was John employed by the RCA, so it was not the business of the classis to judge John’s decision, in that matter, as the New Bruniswick classis (or the hospital’s pastoral care oversight committee, who are his supervisors) saw it. He was director of pastoral care in a very large hospital, and felt a responsibility to their constituency whom he had worked with and known. IT was of two men who had lived together for years and one was elderly– whom John had known professionally for many years– and wanted to tie the knot while they were still both there. John also performed irregular hetgero weddings for selected couples he had counseled and knew, who were “living in sin”, even one whose baby was one hour from being born. That wedding took place on Valentine’s Day, in the mother’s hospital room while she was hooked up to IVs. The bride’s mother was a Christian and a nurse in is hospital whom he knew well (so this new baby will have a Christian grandmother, and parents grateful to John), who asked him to come and marry her daughter as her grandchild was about to arrive. The mother wanted the father to be listed on the birth certificate as her husband. Well if that’s their path to the altar, it’s a place to start. John did not refuse the wedding. He did not only mention God but used the full, beautiful RCA service and the groom had tears in his eyes and both parents were very moved that John and I had traveled an hour each way in heavy traffic and given up our own Valentine’s day lunch, to do their wedding. I was there. I felt it was a genuine union of two people sincerely in their hearts. Again, none were RCA members and he was not employed by the RCA and it was not in a church, so John had discretion concerning this wedding, as his classis allows. For another irregular wedding, he once married a young couple who were both mentally retarded. These were RCA people. He counseled with both sets of parents before doing this. Again, this wedding was not in a church. He tried to help the people achieve a good marriage in an emotional/spiritual sense according to their circumstances. Where are we present to sow the seed of true reverence and commitment, and a life of spiritual awaking, whenever and wherever we can? John’s parents were missionaries in China. You look for the points of contact with people on their terms. Particularly since marriage, in the RCA, is not a sacrament. If John were asked to baptize a baby in irregular fashion, he would not do so, because baptism, for us, is a sacrament. The two are different. Sometimes at the hospital he would be asked to baptize a dead child. That he would not do, because it is not our belief and he would explain that briefly and arrange for a Catholic or other clergy to help that person if possible or to say a prayer but not a baptism.

So what issues of marriage are we as a church body entitled to start policing, when pastoral discretion is the rule of most consistories, in all other weddings? Selective policing –applied only to gays– is a problem of fairness and justice and as I’ve indicated, staying out of this part of the opportunity to connect is foolishness. Obviously, the performance of a marriage is at the discretion of the clergy person, using all of the relevant factors weighed and with standards understood between clergy and his direct supervisors — consistory and classis so that the idea of consensus is honored. Our RCA military chaplains are ordained by the RCA, and may be asked to marry military personnel, who have no other way to honor their faith or to have a religious element in their vows. On a base they may have limited access to other clergy. One military chaplain who is anti-gay said at a conference, “I’m glad the RCA prohibits same sex marriage; it gives me a way to say no to some weddings and refer them to other chaplains.” So what classis told him to take this stance? None. What did that chaplain accomplish? Nothing except a rejecting reputation for the RCA. The military couple he rejected thus are married, but, they were directed elsewhere and if they are people of faith, all that ability and faith and resources and potential loyalty are never coming to the RCA again, folks. Why do we want to let the label of a blanket prohibition mar our (good?) name and stand in the way of welcoming people who are going to form a family and possibly raise children and live in our area for years to come? Why do we NOT want them? Take them humbly into our fold for their strengths and insight, if the wedding basis is genuine, and respect what they have to give to the world. Allow them to meet the correct and proper standards for membership that are not about sexual orientation.

An atmosphere of exclusion is costly, in members we might otherwise have had. In 1966 the RCA reached its peak size of 260,000 members. If 10% of the population is same sex oriented, as studies suggest, and if those 260,000 RCA members had 100,000 genuine RCA-born and presumably RCA-baptized children, then since 1966, the RCA lost 10,000 future members (10% of 100,000) who had close family ties to our church, just by being unfriendly to gays. Are we absolutely sure we could afford that kind of member loss and in the meantime, did we attract replacements — new members who want that stance of being unfriendly to gay persons? Fact is we didn’t gain it back, because we’re shrinking, so we’d better figure out all the reasons why. And the loss of our own children who grew up realizing they were gay and felt left out can be one factor. And what about any real suffering that these children of our own churches experienced along the way? What about the suffering of parents whose children cannot find a comfortable place in the church of their childhood — and be honest about who they are? What about the congregations’ solemn promises at those baptisms to love and to honor those children and serve their spiritual needs? If those children felt excluded and not loved, then promises that the congregation made at their baptism were broken. Part of our ignorance as congregations was that gay identity was so forbidden that it was hidden and thus we came to feel that gay people originated on another planet or fell out of the sky or were from zombie-land, not that they were right around us all the time. I think one reason so many people over 70 are compassionate toward gays and open to openness is that we have lived a long time and so, we would have to have been asleep most of that time not to have known at least a few gay persons pretty well – know some of what they have endured and their struggles to find themselves and be whole.

And consider Ursula Cargill, not raised in the RCA, but, a black woman of great dignity and accomplishment, who holds a graduate degree from Rutgers in Urban Planning, age over sixty, repeatedly elected an elder at Six Mile Run Reformed Church over the past two decades, fully seminary trained, ordained in our sister denomination, under care by NB Classis for several years, knows and loves the RCA and has won approval from those she works with — is she to be kept out of leadership because she is a lesbian? It’s time to include her and protect her. The NB Classis considered the whole person. Some people would look at Ursula and see four reasons to reject her: she’s old, she black, she’s educated but not wealthy, and she’s gay. Nevertheless, she becomes accepted and trusted where she lives, by the local RCA leadership, and then others try to run her out of the RCA — faraway opponents who have never interviewed her, and don’t know a thing about her. IF they succeed, something is very wrong in the denomination. But, so far she has not been run out, despite huge efforts. So far it’s rocky but the system is working. When Ursula is asked what she says to people who say that the Bible opposes gay unions, she says, “I say, ‘keep reading'”.

I am hopeful. Clergy perform weddings as agents of the state and also under their RCA commitments to professional integrity; but at no time are RCA clergy forced to take a vow that they will never perform a same sex wedding. Pastors in the RCA are currently performing gay weddings, with permission of their consciences and of their consistories or classis, who are the only proper authorities over use of the sanctuary, or of the pastor’s actions, and this has been true for some time. Chaplains have discretion as overseen by their classis and their particular employer. Retired pastors have discretion, under their classes. And classes such as Holland, Albany, New Brunswick, and many other classes, in many parts of the country, are permitting variation, as they acknowledge their members read the scriptures differently in light of the issues of the day. The 30 welcoming churches in the denomination are all in good standing with their respective classes. Classes here and there have become aware that some of their member churches are welcoming and others in the same classis have not taken that step, and the classis has consensus that neither view is to bully the other or disrespect the other congregation. Classis has taken the position that this is all right — nothing is wrong, variances of opinion are allowed. When they do that, General Synod has no power to rule otherwise or force them to another position. Since this tolerant stance about differences in matters not critical to the creeds, is the old position of the RCA, it is the conservative position. Any effort to overturn it is raving, wild liberalism.

On a plane on the way home from a church meeting in Grand Rapids I sat by chance with a pastor I didn’t know fro Albany classis. She talked about how her own consistory reached consensus that she could conduct gay marriages; some elders were opposed, others permissive. When the elders opposed realized that no one was asking that they change their minds, and when they realized they were in the minority, they said, “Go ahead and follow your own lead” and all they needed was permission to hold their own view. She seems to have the trust of her own consistory members. So a democratic and peaceable spirit prevails. She had on her part agreed that, until there was consensus on her consistory, she would not perform any gay marriages, but would wait. Likewise, in the Classis meetings, were some churches do and some do not allow same sex marriages, each church is tolerant of the others and each follows the will of their own representative majority, and there is peace. Her church is tiny, and currently, affirming — though they might not have total consent for a move into an official “room for all” level of welcoming church, yet. Larger churches are big, and non affirming, but, the larger church does not overrule the smaller one. But this is the spirit in some places.

I am hopeful that, as soon as possible, the committee will make its report to Synod. But knowing the ways of committees, the written report could suffer from a lot of dithering, and when it comes to Synod, more dithering will take place about wording, what to leave out, what to put in, but from Cameron’s hints not much will really come of it, of long term impact. The churches hovering on the edge of a borderline, wanting unity but only on their terms of exclusion, and thinking of bolting from the denomination, do not seem to have that spirit of mutual regard as in the Albany church I just spoke of, or of toleration as it is working for Albany classis, so they should just dare to act on their vision, and go. Let them make their choice: accept the RCA as it is in structure, and the fact that “unity” is highly overrated as they define it (around an enforced prohibition) or, jump out and insist on “unity” on “the gay issue” (whatever that is, which is actually a tangle of many different issues) lock stock and barrel, wherever they go next. Room for All will be here. We just keep on keeping on, advocating and informing congregations about their option to make their church more vital, more relevant, and more open. Room for All is essentially one of the RCA’s most conservative groups. We advocate for the tolerant position that allowed local option and variant views of scripture concerning social issues, which is the historic standard of governance in our tradition, which places trust in an educated laity, in elections, and in consensus, not one higher authority or “apostolic” vision of rulers who claim to be appointed by God swooping in with the final word to enforce it. That essentially humble vision will survive. Others won’t, I think, in the long run, still be here in twenty years. But avoiding all action because some disagree is not necessary. We are to act on our convictions, and as far as possible, use our freedoms to the fullest.

No one who believes homosexual activity to be wrong is being asked to change their mind. No congregation in the RCA will ever be forced to accept a gay pastor without majority consent in that congregation. No individual person will have to attend a gay wedding or funeral, or baptism or confession of faith. The radical left is the group who are looking to rip up the BCO and force exclusion at all levels, and implement policing, originating outside of the classis, thus disrupt and weaken our governance pattern with its checks and balances on authority and its undercurrent of civility and reason.

1 Comment

Linda Walvoord de Velder says:

April 23, 2016 at 7:10 pm

Thank you, Cameron. It must have been hours of listening.

I helped write the report of the Commission on History, about the RCA’s thirty years of overtures and resolutions on gay issues coming before General Synod for votes, (up, rewritten, or down) — stretching back to 1972, which appeared as part of our report to the 2012 General Synod. Given our history I doubted that 84 people in one hotel for one weekend could come up with one answer, because in my experience, few of our committees gathered in this way actually understand church polity as they unpack their bags and get their coffee and sit down in groups.

I am not surprised that the report will contain three answers, not one. One of these answers could involve trying to change the BCO (Book of Church Order — rules about how power is distributed). But such a change is very arduous and probably doomed, if its efforts would be to achieve top-down enforcement of an anti-gay agenda throughout all the 48 classes of the RCA. But the other two “answers” or recommendations, no matter what they entail, will be essentially toothless, if they do NOT change the BCO. If we don’t change the BCO, then we are headed forward by a better path — keep talking and studying and carrying on dialogue over the many issues that are attached to the rights of gay persons.. However, that kind of “keep talking and keep reading” stance is not what most of the malcontents who were demanding, who asked for such a commission to meet. And regardless of what the answers are, I heard many people at Synod 2015 who felt the same as Donald Trump did when he said to the reporters, that “the Americans don’t want to hear any more about your damn emails.” And she laughed, and so did he. RCA people in many places are sick and tired of the topic and if there is one thing they believe, it’s that a “one-issue religion” where all faith hinges on just one narrow concern, is empty. Still this is not one issue, but touches on so many key things. So my thoughts:

Yes, one of the theoretical three ways forward is for General Synod to pass a change in the BCO so that classes no longer control discipline of their members, as they do now. But even if GS 2016 passed such an incredible thing, it would not become law — it would only be one step of a three step process. One General Synod in one yearly meeting cannot change the BCO, even if it were unanimous. This function of discipline cannot so easily be moved up the ladder in a hierarchy so that someone in Grand Rapids or on a Regional Synod police officer will come around to seek uniformity on an anti-gay agenda in the churches. But even if it could be done in one swift move by this Synod, it wouldn’t be. In fact, the RCA has moved the other way. In the past, when Norman Kansfield was booted out of his seminary presidency, one General Synod (2005) could do that, in one session, boom, he’s out. But the next General Synod moved rather quickly to close a loophole, so that from now on, seminary professors and presidents, like all other clergy, are disciplined only through a classis, and not by General Synod directly. We “fixed” the hole in the boat by plugging it and placing that invisible classis protective shield around seminary professors and presidents, just as it stands around all missionaries, chaplains, clergy, elders (and members) in the denomination. All the above now “report” to a classis, and not directly to a higher body. A lesson was learned, and now, all the poultry — roosters, hens, and little chicklets, are all in the henhouse of the classis protection, and cannot so easily be picked off by a General Synod attacking directly, that has the direct power to drive somebody out or create a disciplinary action. One Synod toppled Kansfield. But that cannot happen again, so, what’s next?

Seminary professors in particular have extra cushioning, as the GS 15 showed. When the anti-gay voices wished to discipline a Western Seminary professor over a book he wrote on homosexuality, the overture was ruled out of order because if a book or publication involves hermeneutics (i.e. interpreting Scripture) it cannot be challenged in a judicial proceeding. The seminary professor was safe because GS does not interpret scripture for others. This goes all the way back to the first Synods of the denomination in colonial days, when John Henry Livingston pointed out that a clergyman did not need classis approval of what he intended to publish. And by inference, that meant only a classis could have deterred a pastor in the first place — not a bishop, pope, or officer of the church. So did any seminary professor ever write any book that did not involve hermeneutics? I doubt it. They do not need Synod pre-approval, and there are no Synod censors, and they cannot be attacked by classes or judicial actions over their expressions of scholarly opinions based on interpreting scripture. So in the end, the attack served to give professors more secure flak jackets than they may have felt before.

This permit to disagree historically in our church became noisy and troublesome at times, but necessary. In slavery days Reformed Church elders and pastors were publishing works on both sides of the issue; nobody was punished or suppressed or disciplined for saying God loves slavery, or God hates slavery. Our classis based structure was a good thing, in troubled times. And yes, there WAS dispute on slavery within the RCA; the Synod of 1861 met while Sumter was fired upon, and they took a vote about whether to support Lincoln’s call to war; the delegates voted support for Lincoln by a bare 2/3 majority. Technically that was about whether Congress should respond with force to the attack on Sumter, but in a larger sense it was sort of “about slavery.” Each classis lived with dissent in its own way. New York classis in particular contained people who wanted to avoid war at all costs. So the first “answer” in the present turmoil –to strip classis of their exclusive right to discipline — and thus to give General Synod or its various arms more powers to discpline and punish, is highly unlikely to happen. Nobody to date has actually succeeded in loosening or getting rid of the powerful idea that classis holds most of the key powers, not a hierarchy. I really do not see that this committee would even propose to undermine classis authority and if they did, the classes would wake up from their snooze if needed, and kill it at stage 2. The classis is like a dog at the door of a henhouse. He may sleep most of the time but, if a wolf comes near the henhouse ready to attack, he wakes up and is dangerous.

The other two choices would have to be “don’t propose change the BCO because you can’t get the votes” so, continue to work on just persuasion — influencing the views of people but don’t ask anyone to change and don’t force restrictions on the personal choices of anyone or trample the rights of congregational consistories. T
his answer is basically “keep talking and maybe some light will dawn on you.”

So where we stood at the end of Synod 2015 is that the same old rules apply: In order for anyone to curb congregations or clergy from permitting gay weddings, or hiring gay staff, or other steps to express their views of the gospel — some authority needs to be empowered higher up, to restrict classes in matters of discipline, ordination and hiring. Right now the BCO excludes any interference with that. And that is solidly re-confirmed in several recent decisions. The opponents know this is what they need to change, but, so far, the actual power grab has eluded them.

If one Synod can’t change the BCO, how does it get changed? To change the BCO takes a three step process that allows time and a lot of means of making sure there is very broad support throughout the whole denomination and at lay and clergy levels. Once a specific overture is written, it takes one Synod to pass it, then requires a separate, classis by classis referendum getting 2/3 of the 48 classes on board, and if that succeeds, then thereis still one more, third step — ratification by a second General Synod. It’s like three big locks on the door, seeking the popular will, and tending to keep the BCO free of change based on passions or whim or a faction. Given the contention over this issue, it would likely take at least a year to circulate a proposal that Synod might pass to the 48 classes and get a poll. Then to go to a new Synod with that same, word for word proposal, would be done, no changes, no amendments at this point or we start the whole thing over. So we would be at Synod 2017, 2018 and maybe 2019, would we not think, to do all this if BCO change is attempted? To change the BCO you need very broad consensus over a period of time and three different ratification steps.

So, given only the softer two answers and NOT a change in the BCO, the answer is that gay stances or policies on any of the 15 or 20 related issues can only be enforced locally. A classis cannot easily correct or restrain a consistory they feel is out of line, except within their own classis and by more than a simple majority. Authority to rule others outside one’s classis boundaries is lacking — other than through agencies of GCS such as the Church Growth outfit people, Yes, Synod’s ongoing, bureaucratic and executive agencies can do a lot to encourage or discourage certain actions or policies, but, they are only agencies, not the underlying authority. And they should be and can be controlled, if General Synod at any time fires the General Secretary, or calls for resignations, or specifically redirects, or de-funds, any specific arm of the General Council.

Today the most harsh suppression going on may be in the Church Growth arena. The Church Growth people, who are supposed to rely upon the authority of a classis in all cases, withdrew $20,000 from New Brunswick Classis a few years ago in order to deter them from keeping Rev. Ursula Cargill on the church plant staff. But the classis bravely replaced the $20,000 from their own pocket and retained Cargill by doing without the extra money from outside. The classis was upset. (A motion to withhold their member assessments from the denomination to the tune of $20,000 to replace the lost funds was narrowly defeated; loyalty was strained but held up. But repeated actions like this would eventually bring outright rebellion in money terms) . Thus, even this money punch in the stomach by the visiting officials of the CGF could not accomplish suppression, and that was the ONLY club in hand. All procedural efforts to get Cargill out have failed. If you doubt this, notice that Rev. Ursula Cargill has been a target of the anti-gay clusters in the church for at least five to seven years, across many different strategies, both in Synod overtures, judicial actions, and in actions by the CGF, but so far, they have found no way to “get” her. The reason is that New Brunswick Classis, (of which my husband was a member for over 20 years, past president for a term, served on the team that examined her, and chair of its diversity committee) stuck to their guns and is bullet-proof because of the BCO. They took Ursula under care at least ten years ago, and about five years ago, appointed her to a staff role in a church plant in Plainfield, NJ. a very diverse urban area. She has served well there ever since. New Brunswick Classis has been like the gingerbread man — you can’t catch them, because they followed correct procedure in taking her under care, and in examining her, and BCO stands in the way of actions by one classis or church challenging or indicting a faraway classis or church. New Brunwick classis dealt with a review by the regional synod on this matter, and was found not at fault. When her appointment was first challenged within the classis, the vote was about 40 for her and 4 against. The four nay-sayers who are in the classis were very persistent and have repeatedly appealed to higher bodies including the regional synod and judicial committee of General Synod, but, New Brunswick Classis was affirmed once again, in the GS 2015. All means of upsetting this have been exhausted and Cargill is still standing. So the next hope of those who want her out, is that the commission might come up with a “constitutional” (begging the question) way to change the SYSTEM, for them to “get” her with new weapons not found in the current BCO, and to get other classes and leaders in the denomination who are quietly and in decent order, lifting the systematic exclusion of gay persons from leadership.

No one can tell at this point whether the move by a group on the Hope College Board of Trustees was prompted in part by wanting President Knapp to not endorse gay leadership, or not. Knapp has denied that the problem related to any religious or social issue. But some readers find the timing peculiar and are afraid Knapp is perceived as leading the college toward openness they do not want to endorse. Knapp however could not be fired by the General Synod. Only the Board of Trustees of Hope College could do that, and if they did, the college could come under question as to their accreditation with national agencies if they fired a president without consultation and involvement of faculty and students, especially since Hope is under watch by the accreditors for lack of diversity.. For now we will assume the fracas at Hope College is unrelated and is academic in nature as Knapp has said, and not issue related.

We don’t need inside information or advance review to know what Cameron has indicated in his very discreet advance report: the logical answers are: 1) do nothing to change authority in the RCA but recognize that we cannot construct a policing arm and keep the denomination from flying apart, AND 2) advise congregations to study the whole issue more and hope for further dialogue, while removing all material that calls homosexuality a sin and all references to aversion therapy from RCA publications, OR ELSE, 3) do try to change the BCO, with language and enforcement plans. To satisfy the parties the proposal must in some way do all of the following in some doable way: prohibit clergy from doing gay weddings, and prohibit RCA classes from taking gay clergy under care, or churches from hiring gay staff, and prohibit the election of gay elders in congregations, or prohibit renting space to or holding welcoming events for gay persons and discourages parishioners with gay offspring from asking them to be married by RCA clergy, or prohibit consistories from offering their pastors discretion in what marriages they will perform, and prohibit consistories from allowing their sanctuaries ever to be used for same sex unions. Whew, that’s a long list and it still doesn’t cover other subjects! Like whether a gay-related movie could be shown to the youth, for discussion not lectures, or whether a gay child can be excluded from the Boy Scout troop that is sponsored by your church. In short, there is no way to write in enough prohibitions, to be able to effectively stop this movement toward openness in some kind of blanket way, and thus to satisfy those who want to stop the trend. Churches are becoming more open. That is the way of the future.

As we speak, the more open churches across the denomination are exercising their rights to do all of the above, as none of them are currently prohibited in an compulsory way. No one is able to stop them. That’s why the anti gay factions are so frustrated! Think about it. Rules are only passed to stop things that are happening. If we propose a rule that elephants cannot cross the streets without their trainers, that means elephants are crossing the streets without their trainers and this is perceived as harmful. There are no elephants running loose in RCA-land. But trying to stop gay weddings from happening with the direct or indirect help and blessing of people in the RCA is like trying to pass a rule that deer can’t run across country roads at night because it causes harm to cars. It’s happening. But, can a rule at this point stop it???? How would we do that? Take gay weddings. How do we stop gay weddings or election of gay persons to consistories, from slipping across the roads of the churches in the RCA? Have an office in Grand Rapids set up with an officer who has a salary, and medical and dental plan, and a retirement fund, whose job it is to review all the applications for weddings and all the consistory nominations in the 900 Reformed Churches, and make sure no applications are accepted by pastors of churches, from gay couples? Okay suppose that could be done. But, what about the chaplains? They do weddings too. They don’t do most of their weddings in churches, because they generally work on campuses, or in hospitals, prisons and so forth. About 100 ordained RCA chaplains are under care of classes, but, they don’t have consistories advising them. They have discretion at the will of their classis. At least, that’s how my husband John did hundreds of weddings over his years at Robert Wood Johnson Hospital. Did the classis, or the officer in Grand Rapids need to collect an application form from every couple for whom my chaplain husband performed a wedding? Well if so maybe we need more than one officer in Grand Rapids to handle all this paper for a thousand clergy plus 100 chaplains plus a bunch of retired clergy and also some ordained retired missionaries out there, doing weddings each year. . And what about the hetero weddings that are irregular or should be refused? A hetero couple once asked my husband to marry them but asked him not to mention God in the ceremony. Surely in Grand Rapids they should patrol for this type of atheist hetero wedding, if we are NOT going to work with pastoral discretion about faithful gay weddings, but call for review boards. Did we review papers for all those inter-racial and interfaith weddings he did? No, we have pastoral discretion, and most classes and consistories would rather eat their hat than go to all the extra meetings that would be needed if we want to re-construct ecclesiastical courts in that fashion. We got rid of such review boards in the 1500s with the Reformation. Do we really want to set that all up again and pay for it? Because if not, then we have pastoral discretion as our guideline. One reason we require so much education for ordination is because RCA pastors have a lot of discretion on a relative basis. Passing a rule intended as a rule, that you cannot enforce undermines the church. Asking pastors to strictly apply a rule for gay persons that you just made up yesterday, when the marriage is entirely legal, might be of two practicing Christians, and the pastors have full pastoral discretion with regard to all those hetero weddings, and the “no gays” rule is also a rule they disagree with, is not wise or fair. Passing a law that a majority of the people you serve disagree with is foolish especially when it runs contrary to the law of the land. And to my eye, looking at 2015 Synod, there is generally NOT a 2/3 majority in Synod for anti gay positions, or for stripping classis of its role.

Where are all these gay couples who are applying to Reformed Churches for their marriages? The truth is, unless the church in question is already welcoming, as a whole, they are already asking other churches, not us — and joining and supporting other churches, not ours. But the eyes of the public are upon us with certain visible signs of acceptance and openness. For every gay wedding we do not perform, these days children are often brought into a family life, and the parents often do take them to Sunday schools and churches — but not ours. Pews get filled, but not ours. What are we accomplishing??? Are we not looking for new young families with children in tow to fill our pews? My sister and her partner have found welcome in a UCC church where they live in Massachusetts. They are very active there. Both are over 70. One day they will leave a legacy. Are we not looking for the life legacies of older gay persons who have RCA roots but, couldn’t find acceptance in our church? They had a wedding, at which I read the Scripture. They had a minister perform the ceremony, just not an RCA minister. They are married, in the eyes of the state of Massachusetts. I’m an elder in a Reformed Church today, soas an elder in a church, should I be disciplined for having participated in a gay wedding that was legal and was not in a Reformed Church? Maybe? Who can the RCA punish? Well you could discipline me, as an elder in an RCA church who participated in a gay wedding, but, where would that get the RCA? One more legacy lost, that’s where. The application of any these proposed specifics turns quickly into a nightmare of losing people we need.

I’m still here in the RCA advocating reason and humility and acceptance. My sister is not. You can’t get the talents or the legacy back that is going to another church. But for people coming up there is still time. Today it’s no longer my sister’s problem that the RCA has not yet fully welcomed gay persons and many members still wish to disparage their marriage. She’s 75, happy in marriage for the first time I can remember, and in a church and she’s well off and she’s got her will in order. It’s the RCA’s problem. Especially if the RCA doesn’t even know who they’re missing.

The ugly efforts to persecute Ursula Cargill have been spooky and surreal. However I like to look on the positive side. So far the RCA has never endorsed a simple minded anti-gay position on any question. The “definition of marriage” that one Synod passed does not have compulsory status, IT is NOT obligatory on members — right now, thus, we don’t need to change it. We do have ordained clergy and chaplains on our rosters today who are gay. We have had college and seminary professors who are gay and they are not currently being harassed. The seminary professor challenged in 2015 for his book did not even get a wrist slap. The anti gay factions in the RCA could not “get” Ursula Cargill in the past ten or fifteen years of persistently trying, so it’s probably too late now. The call for the 84 member council in a way was a panic move for help by people who have lost their cause. They want more ammunition. But, the church has yet to actually empower them more. And I don’t think that the answers from the group of 84 are going to be all that they wanted, and in order to have that power, they needed a LOT more power than they have.

We in the RCA have a large question to answer: what role do we have in ministering to the needs of gay persons? Gay persons — and by this I mean LGBT — do have choices today – where they will live, where they will worship, where they will spend time and money. For example, even in Holland Michigan, gay couples today are able to marry in a Reformed sanctuary — not in every Reformed church, and not on Hope’s campus, and not without counseling and showing faith, but, they can be married in a Reformed Church. Today to be married in an RCA church, it’s just a question of shopping churches, not leaving the denomination, and some of that has taken place. That is a good thing. But how many are trying? HOw many are casting their lot with the RCA? And there are RCA affiliated clergy who are willing, on a selective and counseled basis, to marry same sex persons and they will not be disciplined by their classis or their congregation. It is not something that can be suppressed.

My husband, who passed away in December, 2015, performed one gay wedding during his pastorate in New Jersey, and had no need to apologize to his classis. The wedding was not in a church, and the partners were not of members of any Reformed Church, nor was John employed by the RCA, so it was not the business of the classis to judge John’s decision, in that matter, as the New Bruniswick classis (or the hospital’s pastoral care oversight committee, who are his supervisors) saw it. He was director of pastoral care in a very large hospital, and felt a responsibility to their constituency whom he had worked with and known. IT was of two men who had lived together for years and one was elderly– whom John had known professionally for many years– and wanted to tie the knot while they were still both there. John also performed irregular hetgero weddings for selected couples he had counseled and knew, who were “living in sin”, even one whose baby was one hour from being born. That wedding took place on Valentine’s Day, in the mother’s hospital room while she was hooked up to IVs. The bride’s mother was a Christian and a nurse in is hospital whom he knew well (so this new baby will have a Christian grandmother, and parents grateful to John), who asked him to come and marry her daughter as her grandchild was about to arrive. The mother wanted the father to be listed on the birth certificate as her husband. Well if that’s their path to the altar, it’s a place to start. John did not refuse the wedding. He did not only mention God but used the full, beautiful RCA service and the groom had tears in his eyes and both parents were very moved that John and I had traveled an hour each way in heavy traffic and given up our own Valentine’s day lunch, to do their wedding. I was there. I felt it was a genuine union of two people sincerely in their hearts. Again, none were RCA members and he was not employed by the RCA and it was not in a church, so John had discretion concerning this wedding, as his classis allows. For another irregular wedding, he once married a young couple who were both mentally retarded. These were RCA people. He counseled with both sets of parents before doing this. Again, this wedding was not in a church. He tried to help the people achieve a good marriage in an emotional/spiritual sense according to their circumstances. Where are we present to sow the seed of true reverence and commitment, and a life of spiritual awaking, whenever and wherever we can? John’s parents were missionaries in China. You look for the points of contact with people on their terms. Particularly since marriage, in the RCA, is not a sacrament. If John were asked to baptize a baby in irregular fashion, he would not do so, because baptism, for us, is a sacrament. The two are different. Sometimes at the hospital he would be asked to baptize a dead child. That he would not do, because it is not our belief and he would explain that briefly and arrange for a Catholic or other clergy to help that person if possible or to say a prayer but not a baptism.

So what issues of marriage are we as a church body entitled to start policing, when pastoral discretion is the rule of most consistories, in all other weddings? Selective policing –applied only to gays– is a problem of fairness and justice and as I’ve indicated, staying out of this part of the opportunity to connect is foolishness. Obviously, the performance of a marriage is at the discretion of the clergy person, using all of the relevant factors weighed and with standards understood between clergy and his direct supervisors — consistory and classis so that the idea of consensus is honored. Our RCA military chaplains are ordained by the RCA, and may be asked to marry military personnel, who have no other way to honor their faith or to have a religious element in their vows. On a base they may have limited access to other clergy. One military chaplain who is anti-gay said at a conference, “I’m glad the RCA prohibits same sex marriage; it gives me a way to say no to some weddings and refer them to other chaplains.” So what classis told him to take this stance? None. What did that chaplain accomplish? Nothing except a rejecting reputation for the RCA. The military couple he rejected thus are married, but, they were directed elsewhere and if they are people of faith, all that ability and faith and resources and potential loyalty are never coming to the RCA again, folks. Why do we want to let the label of a blanket prohibition mar our (good?) name and stand in the way of welcoming people who are going to form a family and possibly raise children and live in our area for years to come? Why do we NOT want them? Take them humbly into our fold for their strengths and insight, if the wedding basis is genuine, and respect what they have to give to the world. Allow them to meet the correct and proper standards for membership that are not about sexual orientation.

An atmosphere of exclusion is costly, in members we might otherwise have had. In 1966 the RCA reached its peak size of 260,000 members. If 10% of the population is same sex oriented, as studies suggest, and if those 260,000 RCA members had 100,000 genuine RCA-born and presumably RCA-baptized children, then since 1966, the RCA lost 10,000 future members (10% of 100,000) who had close family ties to our church, just by being unfriendly to gays. Are we absolutely sure we could afford that kind of member loss and in the meantime, did we attract replacements — new members who want that stance of being unfriendly to gay persons? Fact is we didn’t gain it back, because we’re shrinking, so we’d better figure out all the reasons why. And the loss of our own children who grew up realizing they were gay and felt left out can be one factor. And what about any real suffering that these children of our own churches experienced along the way? What about the suffering of parents whose children cannot find a comfortable place in the church of their childhood — and be honest about who they are? What about the congregations’ solemn promises at those baptisms to love and to honor those children and serve their spiritual needs? If those children felt excluded and not loved, then promises that the congregation made at their baptism were broken. Part of our ignorance as congregations was that gay identity was so forbidden that it was hidden and thus we came to feel that gay people originated on another planet or fell out of the sky or were from zombie-land, not that they were right around us all the time. I think one reason so many people over 70 are compassionate toward gays and open to openness is that we have lived a long time and so, we would have to have been asleep most of that time not to have known at least a few gay persons pretty well – know some of what they have endured and their struggles to find themselves and be whole.

And consider Ursula Cargill, not raised in the RCA, but, a black woman of great dignity and accomplishment, who holds a graduate degree from Rutgers in Urban Planning, age over sixty, repeatedly elected an elder at Six Mile Run Reformed Church over the past two decades, fully seminary trained, ordained in our sister denomination, under care by NB Classis for several years, knows and loves the RCA and has won approval from those she works with — is she to be kept out of leadership because she is a lesbian? It’s time to include her and protect her. The NB Classis considered the whole person. Some people would look at Ursula and see four reasons to reject her: she’s old, she black, she’s educated but not wealthy, and she’s gay. Nevertheless, she becomes accepted and trusted where she lives, by the local RCA leadership, and then others try to run her out of the RCA — faraway opponents who have never interviewed her, and don’t know a thing about her. IF they succeed, something is very wrong in the denomination. But, so far she has not been run out, despite huge efforts. So far it’s rocky but the system is working. When Ursula is asked what she says to people who say that the Bible opposes gay unions, she says, “I say, ‘keep reading'”.

I am hopeful. Clergy perform weddings as agents of the state and also under their RCA commitments to professional integrity; but at no time are RCA clergy forced to take a vow that they will never perform a same sex wedding. Pastors in the RCA are currently performing gay weddings, with permission of their consciences and of their consistories or classis, who are the only proper authorities over use of the sanctuary, or of the pastor’s actions, and this has been true for some time. Chaplains have discretion as overseen by their classis and their particular employer. Retired pastors have discretion, under their classes. And classes such as Holland, Albany, New Brunswick, and many other classes, in many parts of the country, are permitting variation, as they acknowledge their members read the scriptures differently in light of the issues of the day. The 30 welcoming churches in the denomination are all in good standing with their respective classes. Classes here and there have become aware that some of their member churches are welcoming and others in the same classis have not taken that step, and the classis has consensus that neither view is to bully the other or disrespect the other congregation. Classis has taken the position that this is all right — nothing is wrong, variances of opinion are allowed. When they do that, General Synod has no power to rule otherwise or force them to another position. Since this tolerant stance about differences in matters not critical to the creeds, is the old position of the RCA, it is the conservative position. Any effort to overturn it is raving, wild liberalism.

On a plane on the way home from a church meeting in Grand Rapids I sat by chance with a pastor I didn’t know fro Albany classis. She talked about how her own consistory reached consensus that she could conduct gay marriages; some elders were opposed, others permissive. When the elders opposed realized that no one was asking that they change their minds, and when they realized they were in the minority, they said, “Go ahead and follow your own lead” and all they needed was permission to hold their own view. She seems to have the trust of her own consistory members. So a democratic and peaceable spirit prevails. She had on her part agreed that, until there was consensus on her consistory, she would not perform any gay marriages, but would wait. Likewise, in the Classis meetings, were some churches do and some do not allow same sex marriages, each church is tolerant of the others and each follows the will of their own representative majority, and there is peace. Her church is tiny, and currently, affirming — though they might not have total consent for a move into an official “room for all” level of welcoming church, yet. Larger churches are big, and non affirming, but, the larger church does not overrule the smaller one. But this is the spirit in some places.

I am hopeful that, as soon as possible, the committee will make its report to Synod. But knowing the ways of committees, the written report could suffer from a lot of dithering, and when it comes to Synod, more dithering will take place about wording, what to leave out, what to put in, but from Cameron’s hints not much will really come of it, of long term impact. The churches hovering on the edge of a borderline, wanting unity but only on their terms of exclusion, and thinking of bolting from the denomination, do not seem to have that spirit of mutual regard as in the Albany church I just spoke of, or of toleration as it is working for Albany classis, so they should just dare to act on their vision, and go. Let them make their choice: accept the RCA as it is in structure, and the fact that “unity” is highly overrated as they define it (around an enforced prohibition) or, jump out and insist on “unity” on “the gay issue” (whatever that is, which is actually a tangle of many different issues) lock stock and barrel, wherever they go next. Room for All will be here. We just keep on keeping on, advocating and informing congregations about their option to make their church more vital, more relevant, and more open. Room for All is essentially one of the RCA’s most conservative groups. We advocate for the tolerant position that allowed local option and variant views of scripture concerning social issues, which is the historic standard of governance in our tradition, which places trust in an educated laity, in elections, and in consensus, not one higher authority or “apostolic” vision of rulers who claim to be appointed by God swooping in with the final word to enforce it. That essentially humble vision will survive. Others won’t, I think, in the long run, still be here in twenty years. But avoiding all action because some disagree is not necessary. We are to act on our convictions, and as far as possible, use our freedoms to the fullest.

No one who believes homosexual activity to be wrong is being asked to change their mind. No congregation in the RCA will ever be forced to accept a gay pastor without majority consent in that congregation. No individual person will have to attend a gay wedding or funeral, or baptism or confession of faith. The radical left is the group who are looking to rip up the BCO and force exclusion at all levels, and implement policing, originating outside of the classis, thus disrupt and weaken our governance pattern with its checks and balances on authority and its undercurrent of civility and reason.

1 Comment

Leave a Reply Cancel reply