Issues With The Banner Part 3 - “A Fuller Witness to the Gospel”

Wherein the need for diversity and new ways of doing things are lauded, but orthodoxy is never mentioned

I apologize for the slowness in posting these articles. For some reason I decided that it would be a good idea to start this Substack right as the busy season at my work began (a busy season that will run through the middle of December), and I have immediately found myself getting behind in posting regularly.

Be that as it may, I am continuing to go through the March 2023 issue of the Banner and pull out illustrations of the sorts of articles I believe demonstrate the way the Banner sneaks concerning and potentially theologically unsound ideas into articles in little sentences here or there while never fleshing out the ideas they are promoting.

I found 9 articles in that issue alone that seemed suspect and “off”. While I understand that not every article is going to be a hit, and there will be misses from time to time, 9 articles in one issue seems like it would be a lot if an publication were spiritually sound, but to be expected from a publication whose editor and staff were not taking their spiritual responsibilities seriously.

“A Fuller Witness to the Gospel” by Cassie Westrate

This article is about “diversity” which is a trendy, politically correct buzzword these days that, quite honestly, is often used to denigrate established norms and traditions whether those norms and traditions deserve denigration or not.

The article itself includes the following statement:

As communities become more diverse,” Sheridan said, “there is a need for different expressions of church. We need churches with different models and ways of praying, reading Scripture, and worshiping God, churches who mentor young people or connect with campus ministries.”

That’s a very bold statement, particularly the idea that “we need churches with different models and ways of…reading scripture.” There are ways of reading and interpreting scripture that are right and that fall within the bounds of orthodoxy, and there are ways of reading scripture that are wrong. That holds true for prayer and worshiping God as well, but particularly for basic reading and interpretation of scripture. The fact that The Banner was willing to so blithely print the claim that we “need” to find new ways to pray, read the Bible, and worship God without demonstrating any kind of recognition of the implications of that and without providing any kind of warning about needing to only do that within the bounds of orthodoxy is, at a minimum, problematic and, at worst, unconscionable.

The article talks about needing different expressions of church but never clearly explains what that is. Is it, for example, talking about the difference between the CRCNA church I attend and the ethnic African church that also meets in our building (both of which are orthodox churches)? Or is it talking about the difference between a run-of-the-mill CRCNA church and Neland Avenue (which may not even be a Christian church at this point)?

Beyond that, the article is confusing because it focuses on the need for diversity and “new” expressions of church but the examples it gives of diverse churches are not new. There have always been churches that cater to specific ethnic minorities within a given community and there have always been churches that have a broader range of ethnicities attending them.

The author never even gives a cogent explanation of what she means when she uses the term “diversity”. She mentions “ethnicity”, but she also mentions “culture” which is hugely broad and can be interpreted any number of ways. Is she talking just about ethnicity? Or does she have in mind other things as well such as socio-economic status? Sex? Gender? Family structure? What kind of diversity is she talking about? It’s important to explain this because not all diversity it good and not all diversity is beneficial and not all diversity falls within the bounds of Christian orthodoxy.

The article just takes as a given that “diversity” is inherently good and necessary and must be fostered without ever touching on one of the major issues of our day i.e., that pushing for diversity within the church has coincided with a decrease in orthodoxy.

The article finishes off with this paragraph:

Church planting is giving us opportunities to embody and witness to the gospel with integrity. … The body is not complete without that diversity. As Paul puts it in Ephesians 3, it will only be together with all of the Lord's people that we are able to grasp ‘how wide and long and high and deep’ God's love for the world truly is.

So, “diversity” (whatever that is) is so important that our Christian experience is going to be deficient so long as we lack it (whatever it is). I thought that our focus was supposed to be upon Jesus and His Word and living our lives in accordance with scripture and the Christian tradition that has been handed down to us generation after generation over the last 2,000 years. Instead, this article is saying that is not enough, we need something “new”, and church will be deficient unless we are suitably “diverse” (whatever that is).

Does the CRCNA as a whole agree with this belief regarding the “need” for diversity within the church? Does it consider diversity an inherent good regardless of where that diversity ends up leading churches and the denomination spiritually/theologically? Does the CRCNA have guidelines and a framework set up in which diversity can be fostered while orthodoxy is still properly respected? Or does diversity trump sound biblical practice and orthodox theology? I don’t see the Banner dealing those questions in any substantive way, but I think the CRCNA really needs to start seriously wrestle with those issues.