Here Be Dragons vs. Better Together Thinking 

by Nate DeJong-McCarron

There is a myth surrounding the mapmakers of the middle ages and it features dragons (What good medieval story doesn’t?!). The story follows that early mapmakers added phrases to the edges of their maps - hic sunt dragones - “Here Be Dragons.” The belief was that mapmakers added this phrase to show their uncertainty of what might await the explorer in the uncharted waters beyond. It was, as Elsa puts it, a step into the unknown.

Beyond the edges of the known world, the threats of what might be were embodied by the danger of dragons - ferocious mythical creatures wrapped in scales, wielding dagger-like teeth, who flew through the air and breathed fire against their foes. The story’s intent was to keep even the most adventurous from wandering beyond the known. 

Over the last several months, as we at Better Together have engaged in calling the church to unity, even across disagreement, for the sake of mission. Along the way we’ve been warned - “Here Be Dragons.” These warnings have intended to frighten us back onto the map. 

We’ve been accused of prideful arrogance (“What makes you think you can do what others could not…”). We’ve been labeled as people who simply want to maintain the status quo and hold on to power (“Where’s your commitment to justice…”). We’ve been considered rabble rousers and trouble makers (“Who do you think you are to stir up such disagreements…”). We’ve been pigeonholed as those on a fool’s errand (“Third Way? Meh.”). In many of these warnings and critiques - the undertones accuse us of veering off the map into the unknown waters and the voices warn us - “Here Be Dragons.” 

One of the primary critiques of Better Together’s efforts is that the CRCNA, as a denomination, cannot engage in this kind of better together thinking around same-sex marriage. That certainty and clarity and confessionalism are key.*** Those arguing against better together thinking suggest that SSM is of paramount importance to our salvation in Christ. The push comes when we at Better Together argue that SSM is not an essential belief of the Christian faith. If it is not essential to our salvation, then it may fall into a non-essential category. Furthermore, if it is not essential, then we may be best served to continue a conversation rather than close a door. 

But, the rebuttals to our thinking can come fast and furious. And yet, the fact remains that as a denomination the CRCNA has navigated this kind of better together thinking throughout its history. 

Here are just a few examples:

• Origins and End Times - Many within the CRC have space beyond a simple binary either/or when it comes to our origins and the creation vs. evolution debates. Similarly, many within the CRC have space beyond a premillennial vs. postmillennial debate when it comes to our eschatology.  

• Sacraments - Many within the CRC have space allowing for children to participate in the sacrament of communion (Children at the Lord’s Table) and a quiet reality, often ignored, is that many within the CRC allow for both infant baptism and infant dedication. 

• Women in Office - For decades the CRC has held two positions in tension (If you’re looking for a worthy example of better together thinking, I encourage you to dig up the Agenda of Synod 2000 (pg. 351-407) and read through the gracious language surrounding this decision). 

• Additional Ethical Issues - The CRC has engaged in better together thinking on a whole host of ethical issues by providing nuanced engagements across the years. Whether it was the unholy trinity of years ago (dancing, card playing, and movies), or how we engage and care for those who have gone through the painful process of divorce and the potentially joyful process of remarriage (Agenda of Synod 1980, pgs.310-328), the CRC has navigated these ethical considerations with care. 

To be clear, these are just a few of the ways we’ve navigated better together thinking in the past and I, and maybe you, would argue that the church is healthier for them. However, today we face another ethical question regarding SSM. Is SSM an essential to our salvation or is it not? I and others struggle to see it as such. 

If the CRCNA has navigated better together thinking by way of faithful disagreement on such weighty issues as creation, evolution, endtimes, the sacraments of baptism and communion, women in church office, dancing, card playing, movies, divorce and more - I struggle to see how we cannot navigate a way forward in faithful disagreement on SSM. Is SSM more essential than our sacraments? Is it more essential than divorce and remarriage? 

If it isn’t, then maybe we can learn from our better together thinking of the past. Maybe we can glean insights and echo language found in the wisdom of those before us as we engage our present challenge. Maybe we can engage in building our collective capacities for better engagement and dialogue. (Yes, some will argue that we’ve listened and listened and listened some more, but the judgment, of whether we have listened or not, must be reserved for the other to whom we claim to listen. The other across the aisle must agree that we have listened to them, lest our claims to have listened simply represent deaf ears.)  

Of course, others will argue that this is a slippery slope. That better together thinking has no end. That the unknown of the future is too risky. That off the map thinking is too dangerous. They’ll echo - “Here Be Dragons”...

And to those who wrestle with this fear, we ought to acknowledge the potential and the fear itself. But, we also have to remember that we serve a God who authors not simply the map itself, but the world on which all maps are based. We can remember that the one who slayed the serpent is the one who can slay every dragon. Rather than give into the fear, might the Holy Spirit be calling us to a deeper, more robust, dialogue as a denomination? A dialogue that we can enter with confidence and hope that God, who created all, is calling us ever forward into his new creation - a new heaven and a new earth. 

Some will echo - “Here Be Dragons…” - and yet we are invited to respond with hope and trust - “Here Be Our God.”

*** Note: In another post I may follow up on these 3 C’s. It can be argued that a hyper-focus on each betrays a fundamental flaw in our thinking. That our demand for certainty may reveal a theological syncretism with modernism. That our pursuit of clarity may reveal a kind of gnostic pursuit as we seek a strict right belief. That our demand for confessionalism may reveal a form of confessional idolatry. But, alas, that is for a different post…