It's interesting you bring up the unresolved conflict of women in office. I was in the CRC for a time and found the decide to not-decide option didn't really resolve the tensions. While a complementarian, I'm not militant about it and was initially at ease with the arrangement of allowing each council to determine for itself how it wanted to operate. But as I interacted with others at classis I found this to be functionally and even relationally disruptive and came to see it as unsustainable. One example, is that someone actually angrily left a table a group of us were sitting at over lunch when I simply mentioned being a complementarian after they finished a lengthy criticism of that position not knowing I was one. The spirit of mutual acceptance, while noble, is overly optimistic as most people are not as in high in openness as is required for that sort of arrangement to work well over the long-term. I imagine trying for the same sort of decide to not-decide path on the sexuality matter would be even more disruptive.
The RCA for a long time had the conscience clause which meant that office bearers didn't have to do anything if it went against their conscience (like ordaining a woman as a pastor.) They seemed to be able to manage like that in a way that the CRC can't. (Though the RCA has dissolved over the human sexuality issues.)
My other thought is that previously there were other aspects of identity that would outweigh gender and sexuality but that's not the case now. Reformed confessionalism has disappeared and the church governing bodies that Paul mentions have lost their 'teacherly authority.'
It's interesting you bring up the unresolved conflict of women in office. I was in the CRC for a time and found the decide to not-decide option didn't really resolve the tensions. While a complementarian, I'm not militant about it and was initially at ease with the arrangement of allowing each council to determine for itself how it wanted to operate. But as I interacted with others at classis I found this to be functionally and even relationally disruptive and came to see it as unsustainable. One example, is that someone actually angrily left a table a group of us were sitting at over lunch when I simply mentioned being a complementarian after they finished a lengthy criticism of that position not knowing I was one. The spirit of mutual acceptance, while noble, is overly optimistic as most people are not as in high in openness as is required for that sort of arrangement to work well over the long-term. I imagine trying for the same sort of decide to not-decide path on the sexuality matter would be even more disruptive.
The RCA for a long time had the conscience clause which meant that office bearers didn't have to do anything if it went against their conscience (like ordaining a woman as a pastor.) They seemed to be able to manage like that in a way that the CRC can't. (Though the RCA has dissolved over the human sexuality issues.)
My other thought is that previously there were other aspects of identity that would outweigh gender and sexuality but that's not the case now. Reformed confessionalism has disappeared and the church governing bodies that Paul mentions have lost their 'teacherly authority.'