A few weeks ago, I received a message from Kristin Du Mez asking if I’d represent the Reformed Journal in a brainstorming meeting with a small group thinking about how to respond to our present cultural and religious moment. The group was meeting at her home on a Saturday evening and she mentioned Nick and Claire Wolterstorff were going to attend.
I said yes before I checked my calendar—that invitation was the sort of thing I would clear my calendar for.
There were nine of us and as we talked, plans came together to do an event on May 3—a conversation between Nick and Kristin called “Free to be Faithful.” Kristin asked if I might be interested in facilitating the conversation. I was flattered and readily agreed.
We advertised the event on the RJ, and Kristin promoted it on her Substack newsletter. By the time May 3 rolled around, 500+ had signed up to attend the event live and 3000 had registered for the livestream. There were watch parties organized in several places and people watched the livestream around the world. The event struck a nerve—obviously the members of our little planning group weren’t the only ones interested in how we live faithfully in this moment. If you were not able to attend or watch the livestream, we’ll soon share the video.
We partnered with the Institute for Christian Studies as sponsors. ICS is uniquely poised, as a Canadian institution, to offer courses and events that American institutions, wary of their anti-DEI crusading government, may be reluctant to get behind.
Here are a few things that struck me about the evening (I’m leaving plenty out):
I asked Kristin to help us understand how the book she’d been working on late in 2016, a religious biography of Hillary Clinton, turned into Jesus and John Wayne. Kristin identified the release of the infamous “Access Hollywood” tape, where Donald Trump brags about sexually assaulting women, as the turning point. When evangelical leaders stood by Trump after the release of the tape—a “smoking gun” if there ever was one—Kristin felt led to change the focus of her next book to interrogating why so many Christians supported a candidate whose moral depravity was in plain sight.
I was moved by Kristin’s recollections of serving on our board and her tribute to the late John Hwang, whose visionary work not only helped create the digital RJ, but helped Kristin create a website and embrace becoming a public theologian. As Kristin was speaking, I couldn’t help but think how pleased John would have been with our event Saturday night.
I loved when Nick shared that his first article for The Reformed Journal was published in October, 1960. That article is a few months shy of being eligible for Medicare. Nick was 28 at the time. As I said Saturday night, you can do the math. Nick’s mental acuity would be amazing at any age . . . but someone in his 90s? He is amazing. I also loved hearing him speak about coming from two generations of woodworkers and then, a few minutes later, he gave a sort of apologia for belief in God that made me want to get the recording of the event and memorize it. It was simply stunning.
Nick also spoke eloquently about his Kuyperian belief that the role of government is to establish and ensure justice, drawing on Psalm 72 and Romans 13. (Nick also identified himself as a “neo-Calvinist,” part of a movement that stands on the shoulders of Abraham Kuyper. This movement is often confused with the “New Calvinists,” a group marked by patriarchal theology. They are very different.) After speaking about justice for a moment, Nick then spoke about the rise of a different understanding of the role of government, an understanding championed by the religious right. Nick quoted Benjamin Lynerd’s book Republican Theology: The Civil Religion of American Evangelicals. In this view, the role of government is to protect individual liberty.
Centering justice means the government must help protect the weakest and most vulnerable. Centering liberty leaves the strong free to do what they want to the poor and oppressed.
Which approach sounds more like Jesus?
One other takeaway that I have been thinking about since Saturday: Kristin spoke about how the first 100 days of Trump’s second term should not be a surprise to anyone, since during the campaign he clearly signaled what he would do. Yet she’s frustrated that so many institutions seem to be caught flat-footed by the authoritarian power grabs taking place around us. I believe she is absolutely correct.
So what shall we do? That was the real purpose of our gathering Saturday. Our dream is that a grassroots movement of people who are ready to do something will emerge. A number of options being sponsored by ICS were presented Saturday night. You can find out about those on the ICS website. For our part, the RJ will continue to be a space that presents a vision for faithful living which doesn’t bow to Caesar and seeks to foster a community among like-minded people.
I’m interested in what reactions those of you who were with us on Saturday, either online or in-person, might have. What were your takeaways? What will you do?
Photos by James Ernest and Phil Tanis.
31 Responses
It is a gift that the RJ can serve in this way. Thank you for being open and faithful.
Is there any way to view the conversation?
Thank you, Jeff, for moderating this important discussion, and to RJ and ICS for an exciting new partnership. I sensed that we in the room were extremely eager to rally around trusted voices who can give insight into our situation from a Christian perspective and who can point us to or lead us in tangible resistance/action. Is there a specifically faith-based protest movement ready to be birthed? I for one hope to see tens of millions of people rallying in the streets in broad-based nonviolent protest – and soon! We also need urgent discussion of what a more just, equitable system of government looks like, especially one that prioritizes the rapid transition away from fossil fuels and towards clean energy and a sustainable circular economy.
One other note on the photo caption: we are Eastern Ave Church now, not Eastern Ave CRC. Thank you!
I will fix that.
Thanks, julia. I like your ideas.
I’m so glad I heard about this conversation and was able to attend virtually. The conversation was both thought provoking and comforting. That said, I strongly echo Julia’s comment. There is a very vocal, outward facing “movement” of Evangelicals and many mainline Christians, who have the world’s attention. I believe we need to be engaged in some type of action along these lines. I often think we are too inward facing, having conversations with like-minded folks, often behind the scenes. I love and appreciate the conversations – but also think action/doing is needed. Protests, media engagement, anyway for the world, especially folks like me who are baffled by the what feels like the soft spoken response from non-evangelicals. Please know I am not trying to be critical. I am trying to voice my frustration.
Yes!
Thank you, thank you for this conversation – well done! A few things stick with me (though I’m eager to watch it again). When both guests were asked if they were deconstructionists, they responded with a resounding no. They credit their deep roots in the faith and stimulating intellectual Christian thinking for the foundation that they build on – that was helpful. Nick W’s speaking of two tiers of justice in the Bible was also helpful. Kristin’s talk of authority and power in the 20th and 21st centuries was enlightening and how it has influenced the state and the church. Nick’s encouragement to get involved in local government was good, too, I think, as that is where the most immediate impact on our lives resides and there may not be all of the deep grievances constantly hurled against each other. I don’t go to the political problems as quickly as some people because I have never put my faith in the government. The rapid change of power (every 4 or 2 years) and the great distance between our parties has created a huge pendulum swing that has become a wrecking ball (in my mind). But I really grieve when I see that wrecking ball doing it’s work on the church – which it has. On Saturday, I had just come from an event that the Colossian Forum had participated in Grand Rapids. Their work is all about reconciliation, humility and hope. I wrote down several questions for myself in response to both events. How am I called to lay down my weapons and turn toward the other, seeking understanding? Have I joined a side and do I feel superior in my thinking to the other? How do I give up my right to be hurt and wronged when others don’t see what’s happening? Would I share a cup of coffee and engage in meaningful conversation across a table from those who I feel ‘stole’ my denomination from me? If you have talked with me over the last year, you know how intense I can get on the subject of the CRC that I love. Reconciliation is really hard. What does God require of us in this moment?
I appreciate those deep and probing questions, Diane, and need to wrestle with them, too. With the CRC in my rear view mirror, I shouldn’t move forward without such humble and honest evaluations. Keeping our feet to Christ’s mission, our eyes to his face, our hands to his mercy and our hearts to his Word demands it of us.
Thanks to Jeff Monroe, the Reformed Journal, and the Institute of Christian Studies, for putting together this event, and to Kristin DuMez and Nick Wolterstorff for their insights.
Thanks too for the going-forward offerings of online classes, reading suggestions, and future conferences. These are all valuable in deepening the understandings of those of us already “in the room.”
But to stop with these is to be preaching to the choir or, worse, to be fiddling while Rome burns.
We need to make a space for ourselves in the national conversation, not just continue in our internal one. We need to be seen and heard on a bigger stage in order to make a difference in a timely fashion. Which means now.
Thank you for getting us started.
I had to chuckle after the presentations and discussion when it came down to more classes and conferences, etc. That seemed/seems to often be the response – more talk. I hope there can be many opportunities to “do”. Maybe that came out of the ending time of smaller group discussions. I look forward to hearing more. There has to be more.
To begin how about having a word with those members of the Reformed Churches who serve in this disastrous administration? I’ve sent letters expressing my concerns and lifting my humble Christian witness, but I’m sure someone with more authority would have greater influence. 🤷♀️
You said, “ICS is uniquely poised, as a Canadian institution, to offer courses and events that American institutions, wary of their anti-DEI crusading government, may be reluctant to get behind.” While this is certainly true, the ICS, where I worked for a year (40 years ago now), and which my Canadian parents supported financially for decades, is uniquely poised in many other ways as well, including it’s long history of summer conferences (with their unique blend of heady academic topics and times of communal worship), its long history of Senior Members not afraid to rattle the traditions a little and much more.
Thank you for your work. I really appreciated the Saturday evening presentation. I too wonder how to expand our voice. I received a post in my feed regarding Lutheran bishops speaking out. I think we need a nationwide voice – Bishop Budde comes to mind. How can we all join together? I am also wondering if there would be a way to produce and distribute a single yard sign with a simple recognizable message – sort of like the Black Lives Matter has done – churches could distribute them. Would be especially nice if there was an artistic flair to them.
A community! I’m in.
Like-minded. I’m excluded.
First of all, thanks to ICS and RJ for hosting the meeting and moving forward with meaningful academic events. I sense in the responses so far that most people are directing concerns at the trauma within the CRC, but warnings have been sounded about the dangers to our democratic form of government in the United States presented by the agenda of the current administration. There is a need for citizens to counter the dangers by working to empower Congress and the judiciary to stand against the new imbalance of power. One group that is working on that issue can be accessed at indivisible.org. There are national, state, and local level components to this organization and they encourage direct contact with congress and senate members when legislation is under discussion potentially affecting areas of concern. It is informative, bi-partisan and encompasses issues that should concern Christians as well as non-Christians.
I enjoyed the presentation because for a long, long time I have been wondering how people who call themselves Christians, even Reformed Christians, could support such obviously immoral leaders. I have felt rather alone in Christian circles so much so that I avoid them. In Saturday nights presentation there were a lot of defining the problem which was encouraging to me. The role or definition of government was enlightening. However, the question “what can we do” was spoken about numerous times but no clear cut answer was given. Remember Jesus didn’t just teach he sent his followers out to be salt and light in the world. How can we be salt and light in a government increasingly becoming more authoritarian?
I appreciated the event and the intent around it. However, I was disappointed with your need to target deconstructors as an opening. There is so much that needs to be addressed within American Christianity and deconstruction seems the least of our concerns. In fact, deconstructors, like myself, are your allies, not your enemies.
I deeply appreciated the meeting on May 3. As a 94-year-old and a veteran of previous controversies (women in office, abuse identification and prevention in the CRC) I am not able to take an active part in this one. But it is so affirming to see other highly capable people carrying on both the tradition and the need for community. I pray for all their efforts and the efforts of those who will join them.
I add my voice of appreciation for the Free to be Faithful discussion Saturday night. I was very glad to attend and to hear Kristen and Nick recap their own odysseys and share their assessment of the current crisis. I am grateful for the several replies here that urge action, and action NOW! As I surveyed the crowd at Eastern Ave Church, I wanted to find even a score of people under 30 or even 40 years of age. I could not. That made me realize that no small number of attendees (both in the church and on-line), myself included, have some impressive credentials as change agents. In the 60s, and 70s, we read and studied, talked and wrote. But real change came when joined broad assemblies of neighbors, near and far in marching, and advocating and challenging in and around the halls of power. We stood then on Biblical truth and the founding documents of this country. They have not changed since the days that we marched in Washington, but have we?
Many thanks to Kristen Kobes Du Mez and Nick Wolterstorff for the deep insights and testimonies they shared, and to the Reformed Journal and the Institute for Christian Studies for staging this event. I found the first half of the evening, which focused on personal faith and the “capaciousness” of a Reformed worldview, to be particularly exciting.
When the discussion shifted to the current political situation, the discussion became predominantly US-centric. I can understand why, given the Michigan location of the event. As a Canadian, however, I began to feel slightly left out. While the present situation in Canada does bear some parallels to that in the US, nevertheless a number of very significant issues are unique to Canada, and will need to be identified and addressed. I believe there are Christians who are competent to do so.
I want to join the deep appreciation for the three of you on the platform Saturday evening. And I want to join my voice with those who are calling for adding an emphasis on action. I think we Reformed folk tend to spend a lot of time on concepts and doctrine and backgrounding and theoretical approaches, while we spend too little planning what we can and should do. How can we be active, proactive, in our societies and governments and communities? Many of the writers above are making the point that it’s time to move to organizing and speaking into the political situation and acting in support of justice. I’m so eager for us to get to that stage of responding to what’s going on.
Four brief takeaway comments:
1. There is a false sense of security and zeal that comes from claiming certainty. These three brilliant thinkers renew the call to humility.
2. The foundational value of shalom, MUTUAL flourishing, as a guiding principle for governance, worldview, and (non) nationalism. Both Old and New Testaments are being hijacked. The chosen people are called to infiltrate the empire, not become it.
3. The Bible repeatedly warns against the abuses of power and empire. The decline of worldwide democracy and drift towards scowling “gods” of our own delusional making is stunning. Christianity is being mocked.
4. I loved the brief but profound comment Jeff made about flip-flopping the value of “good” questions and “good” answers. Journey vs destination.
Thank you to all organizers and presenters.
This event was a gift! Thank you!
Thanks for this great summary, Jeff. I want the Canadian audience to know that we plan to serve a specifically Canadian context as well, and I am currently in the midst of forming a Canadian advisory team for just that purpose. One early result of that effort is that next year we will offer a course led by Angela Reitsma Bick, editor of (the very Canadian) Christian Courier. Through an exploration of storytelling, this course highlight the way Christian deconstruction has taken shape in Canada.
For those impatient with these offerings of more courses and seminars, etc., we are educators, and don’t claim to be able to do all that needs doing. But ideas have legs, and it is valuable to create spaces where people can come together and discern the spirits of our times and where the Spirit might be leading us today. The actions we take as a result, individually and collectively, will be up to each one of us, and I believe must spring from below and not be dictated from above.
Finally, I too want to put in a good word for Christian deconstruction, if that is the name we are giving to the effort to squarely face and work through the toxic elements of one’s religious upbringing. Count me as someone in that camp. That said, I don’t think Kristin and Nick meant to disparage those, like myself, who have underwent or are undergoing such a process, but simply reflected the fact that their religious upbringing has been less psychologically damaging and so in less need of that kind of work.
All these comments are incredibly valuable as we seek to shape an environment that is responsive to what people are telling us they need. Thanks everyone for taking the time to weigh in here with both affirmation and criticism!
I’d like to see a fuller discussion about how we distinguish between healthy and unhealthy ways of applying our faith in the public arena. There are so many ignorantly zealous, intolerant, and naive ways of doing it. Are there basic principles we can use to avoid the obvious pitfalls without retreating into passivity? Should churches, or particular congregations, ever involve themselves in public questions or is that the responsibility of individual Christians? The Biblical prophets were very specific in their condemnations of certain practices and even particular rulers. How specifically should modern pastors address issues from the pulpit? I think these are issues that Reformed Christians should tackle both because our theology offers some guidance and because we have often been guilty of applying it badly. I think the whole Christian community is desperately in need of such a discussion.
I found one of the most important topics discussed at the event was power. Whatever form our resistance takes, it should not be as just another faction competing for worldly power — a temptation it is difficult to resist. In response to acts of hatred and brutality and gross abuses of power, I think resistance will look a lot like acts of love and service. I suspect that Jacques Ellul was right when he wrote, “. . .this permanent orientation of Jesus, this express choice not to use power, places us Christians in a very delicate situation. For we ought to make the same choice, but we are set in a society whose only orientation and objective criterion of truth is power . . . We have to repudiate both the spirit of the age and the means it employs. If we do not, if we yield even a fraction to these forces, we will betray Jesus Christ just as surely as if we committed some individual and limited sin. For this is a choice for life (nonviolence being a part of it), and no other is possible. Pretending that we can express the Christian faith in works of love (aid to the poor and sorrowing, etc.), or in revolutionary acts to achieve justice, is treason if we engage thereby in the use of power. For the last word of love is that never in any circumstances will it express or indicate power in relation to others. Today only a nonuse of power has a chance of saving the world.” (From Jacques Ellul’s What I Believe, translated by Geoffrey W. Bromiley. Eerdmans, Grand Rapids MI, 1989, pp. 150-151.)
Thanks all for a wonderful evening! I particularly appreciated the different generational perspectives offered by Kristin and NIck, but both rooted in a tradition of learning and exploring God’s good creation.
One important aspect of Nick’s view of justice was not included in the summary and which I believe is very important in our efforts to be faithful. Nick mentioned that there are two kinds of justice. One is about the relationships we have among each other, person to person and within our communities. The other is the justice required of governments. I missed the first kind of justice in the summary. This is important because we (rightly) get discouraged by the injustices ignored by the current US government and most governments, but we need to remember that fundamental justice is the responsibility of us all. In fact, I would suggest that the bulk of justice created in the world comes from what you and I do with each other, day after day, often despite governments and even as a substitute for government inaction. Our freedom to be faithful begins at home.
And in fact governments can both build upon that justice shown by people and communities and create conditions for it to thrive.