Last Sunday we kicked off our Lenten Study of the Heidelberg Catechism.  Amid robust conversation in our adult Sunday School class (join us 10am, every week) the little seed of an idea rooted itself in the soil of my wondering.  It started to grow during the sermon and every since it's been rumbling around beneath the surface.  So I bring it here to let it sprout!

It seems to me that adherence to a confession or membership in a confessional denomination is a bit like marriage or, at least, like the decision to get married.  Great disappointment lies in wait for the bride or groom who thinks that he or she is getting married in order to avoid arguments and conflicts.  Who thinks they have thoroughly vetted their future spouse such that now they are thoroughly agreed on finances, sex, handling the in-laws, expectations of roles in parenting and no further discussion or renegotiation will ever be necessary.

It seems to me that the better part of dating is about vetting the arguments and disagreements that do exist and will persist on the other side of marriage vows.  In other words asking yourself, "Is THIS the argument I want to have over and over again until death do us part?  Can I live with this disagreement in all it's multiple and creative manifestations over a lifetime?" And, perhaps most important, "Do I trust the character of this individual that we will be able to disagree respectfully, lovingly and well?"  

So then membership in a confessional denomination or adherence to something like The Heidelberg Catechism works the same way.  Great disappointment lies in wait for the individual who thinks that saying "I'm in" is the end of the conversation.  Who lays out all the options for a side-by-side comparison and concludes, "This one! Now I have absolutely picked the very best doctrine available.  No further discussion or renegotiation will ever be necessary."

It seems to me that studying the catechism -- both in advance of joining a church and as a member of the church -- is about vetting the arguments and disagreements inherent to it.  Make no mistake, every denomination, church, catechism, etc. lends itself to inherent arguments/disagreements. (Perhaps a point in favor of an intentionally confessional church is that it is harder to experience a bait-and-switch once the vows have been made.)  Just as there's no such thing as marrying the perfect person, there is no such thing as joining a perfect church.  But we can determine whether these conversations inherent tensions are the ones that capture our imagination, engage our intellect and resonate with the calling God has placed on our lives.  So, for example:
- I shouldn't join a Mennonite Church if I am unwilling to engage conversation about pacifism and peace-making.
- I shouldn't join an Episcopal Church and then complain about why the sermons are short and they celebrate the Eucharist every week.
- Participating in a historically Reformed congregation (Presbyterian, Reformed, etc.), I will want to be prepared for a little more intellectualism than emotionalism on tap in most worship experiences. And I won't be caught off guard by the many conversations about the nature of God's sovereignty, the importance of covenant (and it's manifestation in infant baptism) and Kingdom
Are these the doctrines with which I am willing to grapple?  And most important, "Do I trust the character of this church and this tradition to discuss, and, at times, disagree, lovingly and well?"