To My Church, On The Eve Of a Decision

During the summer of 1957, a mixed race family immigrated from Holland into the small town of Terra Ceia, North Carolina. The father was Dutch, the mother Indonesian. As they attempted to send their two children to the local Reformed Church school, they were met at the door by local segregationist leaders who considered the children to be colored and therefore unable to attend the all white school. This incident brought the small Reformed Church of Terra Ceia to a type of crossroads in regards to the issue of racial segregation.

It seems to me, that our church, has found itself in a similar place; at our particular intersection, in my opinion, lies not so much  the two choices we would seem to have on the surface; namely one arrow pointing towards the traditional view on this issue, the other away from it. Rather, the choice I see before us, is much deeper, much more complex then one single issue, even if this issue is one that hits as close to home as it does. The crossroad we find ourselves at, rather, is one in which we have to now decide how  we are going to be as a community, before we even decide what we are going to be. We are in a place in which the way in which we come to a decision, seems to me to be just as important as the decision we decide to come to as a community.

On both sides of this debate lay excellent articulations of said positions; on both sides lay convincing interpretations of scripture. Because of this complexity, it seems as though we as a church body would be remiss to think that a decision could be made if, as a body, we are minimally informed, at best. For those who need a decision sooner, rather than later, I would ask you to consider the source of that anxiety. Your desire for a quick resolution may be a subjective feeling in you that prevents others from going through the process of discerning where they stand on this issue, a process that one would assume you have already taken the time  to do.

We are not the first community of faith to be divided over an issue of great weight, and we will not be the last; whether it was circumcision, slavery, miscegenation or women’s rights, the church has had to navigate its stance on these issues through the guidance of the Holy Spirit. Therefore, it seems to me that the good of the body  would be best served if the decision on where we stand as a community, is made after copious amounts of time has been spent in conversation (say six months to a year for example) so that those who would choose to search the scriptures and their hearts on this issue can adequately do so. The leadership, I’m sure, could point people towards resources on both sides of this conversation. Having done our homework, so to say, we as a body would then be able to make a more informed decision on this issue.

In the meantime, I would ask that we agree live in the tension of disagreement for a time, as opposed to packing up our toys and going home. In truth, this is something we do every Sunday; surely we are not naive enough to think that the person to our right and to our left believes exactly the same thing as we do. Therefore, extend the grace and space you maintain for others on issues of baptism, predestination and end times theology to this issue. In having space, we can continue to commune with one another in the midst of ideological discord and perhaps come to some kind of consensus on what we should do.

In the end, the situation in Terra Ceia led to the passing of what come to be known as the “Hackensack Race Resolution”. The conclusion of this document reads as follows:

“We are called as a Church to transcend the prejudices of individuals and the traditions of sections of the people. We are called to seek the unity of believers which was created in Jesus Christ. We are called to seek this unity first of all in our own household.”

It is my fervent hope that ultimately, the goal of these discussions and subsequent decision will be to seek the unity spoken of here. To not attempt to seek this first, above all, would seem to me, to be the greatest kind of tragedy.

Tags

You might also enjoy…

8 responses to “To My Church, On The Eve Of a Decision”

  1. Dalila

    Thank you for putting to words, what I’ve been feeling.
    This is exactly what I feel is needed. Time. Time to sort
    My thoughts, to study, to process whats in my heart. This
    Decision is not so cut and dry. I hope more people read
    Your article and come to the same conclusion.
    Thank you!!

  2. Justin Campbell

    Thanks for your kind words Lila. That’s my hope as well.

  3. Annalyssa Lee

    I’m a bit confused by this post. It was written to a very specific audience, providing little to no gain to others who are not involved. Whatever the decision the church is facing, I agree with the importance of emphasizing thoughtfulness and unity in church but the abstractness and vagueness of this post makes it helpful only for those involved and it is hard to know the take away from a post like this when you allude to racial discord in the church but do not reveal what should be taken as a serious parallel. I realize that probably this decision is a private one, and am not seeking to know it, but I was quite confused as to what was meant to be accomplished in this post to those who are not involved. Are we to just take away the call to unity? or are we to consider a certain stance that the church is making as something we need to more seriously reconsider such as homosexuality, missions, stewardship, restoration and reconciliation in leadership, integrity, Spiritual Formation practices.. etc? You allude to something as serious as racial segregation and prejudice as a parallel to this issue, also arguing that there is scriptural support for views on both sides of the issue and then the reader is left wondering what he is to be considering.
    I pray your church is able to make a wise and edifying decision. I am just confused as to what theme or insight is to be drawn from this by the reader who is not involved.

    1. Justin Campbell

      Hi Annalyssa,
      Thanks for the read and thoughtful comment. Let me speak a little bit to my process in writing this piece. I thought that if I were to have told the reader the specific issue, the conversation would be taken towards whether or not the church was right or wrong, which, as I state in my piece, is exactly what I’m trying not to do here. Rather, I wanted to focus on how quickly we jump to hashing out issues without first making a commitment to maintaining the unity of the body. To say that church unity is a kind of “sub-issue”(if I understand your critique correctly) when compared to the ones you mentioned seems to me to stem a certain kind of narrow obsession with being right vs being wrong that bringing up issues allows us to wallow in; an obsession, with, as Peter Rollins says, creating tribal identities and sitting on one side of the river and telling the people on the other side that their wrong. Is this what Christianity is about? Or could it possibly be about something more nuanced, perhaps about maintaining community in the midst of disagreement and differing views. I can’t say I know for sure (though I’m sure you can tell which way I lean) and I’m sure some will label me idealistic in this notion. And yet, the fact that a call to church unity could be labelled as idealistic seems to me to be sad evidence of how easily we can slip into the aggressively partisan rhetoric of the culture that envelops us. Hope that addresses your comment and I’d love to hear any further thoughts that you have on the piece. Again, thanks for reading and for your comment.

  4. Annalyssa Lee

    Hi Justin,
    Thank you so much for taking the time to respond to my comment. It was very helpful in clarifying the way you wrote it in order to emphasize unity in how we address these topics. I do not think unity is a “sub-issue”, but I see that my critique may have conveyed that. I agree that the church needs to think well and in a godly way about the topics that bring about disagreements, especially things that the Bible doesn’t speak clearly and directly about. Thanks so much for clarifying and for the insight into the importance of unity. I understand how naming certain specific topics could distract from what you were trying to get across. I agree with you that church unity should not be thought of as idealistic but rather something we should always be striving for by the power of Christ. Thanks again for taking the time to clarify.

    1. Justin Campbell

      Hi Annalyssa,
      Thanks again for your thoughtful comment. If I didn’t say it clearly before, I really appreciate your critical engagement with my piece. In a world that is often times, very busy, it’s refreshing to be able stop for a moment in order to interrogate the world around us. Thanks again for reading my work and for your comment.

  5. Ruth

    Please bear with me as I explore, in text, what you wrote and type out some of the questions that arose as I read through your post:
    1. Unity is clearly critical in your post, in the sense of unity in a “I love you, despite…” sort of way. What would be your definition of unity? Would you say denominations are a lack of unity within the Body? Or are they like two brothers that love eachother, but know they can’t work together without fighting so they go to different branches of the same business? (I think we all wrestle with this thought at some point….)
    2. Is there a point where the price for unity is too high to pay? What is the theological breaking point?

    1. Justin Campbell

      Hi Ruth,
      Thanks for your questions. They’re really thought provoking and I’ll do my best to answer them from where I’m currently at.
      1. To me unity would be defined, loosely, as the ability to live within difference. It’s essentially the decision to maintain fellowship with someone even though you may disagree with them. That’s my working definition, anyway. I think that if I’m being honest, there’s a part of me that feels like denominations are a kind of cop out. (I say that not as a “superior outsider”, but as a insider attempting to cast a critical gaze on my own tradition). It feels to me, that because people have the option to leave, to “go down the street” so to say, that it makes them less likely to stick around a church in the midst of disagreement.To me, two brothers who can’t work together without fighting is evidence of type of deep dysfunction that I wouldn’t be comfortable putting my stamp of approval on right away; that being said, I think that if the both of the brothers wanted to, they could work out whatever it is they were fighting over and come to some kind of mutual compromise. It would take work, and they wouldn’t get everything that they wanted, but they would be together. That being said, as with all hypothetical situations, there are exceptions to the rule…which takes us nicely to your second question.
      2. This is a question I have for myself. I think, that there’s a part of me that thinks that “no, there shouldn’t be any theological breaking point.” I say this because there’s a part of me that thinks that if this is God’s church, as opposed to our own, and it can be taken down by disagreement, then how strong is the system in the first place? (This then sends me in a kind of spiritual existential tailspin) But then, another side of me thinks that I wouldn’t stay for one minute in a church that believed, say, that blacks and whites couldn’t marry, seeing as I am black and my wife is white. I don’t know if that impulse to leave is “right” or “wrong”, but I don’t think I would wait around to find out. I think that’s why I’m so fascinated with this discussion of unity in the first place. It gets to the heart of how we deal with the self/other divide.
      Would love to hear your further thoughts.

Leave a Reply to Dalila Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *