Darren Roorda

Thanks, Mr Koning, for a gracious written response of challenge and disagreement. In the forum that the online world provides, tis kind of well-written response is a gift. It would have been so easy to go to negative banter, but instead you wrote so beautifully and thoughtfully. THANK YOU.

Because this is the kind of thing in which I would rather speak to you in person, I will not write a tonne. i will restrict myself to one comment of disagreement. Besides, I love the majority of what you write and so I would not disagree much, at all. ANd the point Idisagree with is that TWU and its graduate lawyers would somehow be at a loss to representing or being on the side of a portion of the population they disagree with.

After all, you write:

Who of us wants to live in a society where a faith community can so alter the legal profession as to  have it's members advocate only for those who share their core values and creedal commitments.   I hate to imagine a world where lawyers who are Christian would not advocate for the rights of the LGBT community as afforded them under Canada's charter of rights and freedoms.  Surely this is the logical outcome if Trinity Western University were to be granted standing in the light of its creedal requirement. 

 

Fundamentally, I think this is wrong. The covenant they wanted to write was an internal matter that does not necessarily lead to such an outcome.  I think it  would be very possible for the lawyer graduates to still work for the rights of those in the LGBTQ community. In the same way we as Christians can work, serve and love those are in disagreement with us on many levels, so too these lawyers. I fight for the rights of my atheist neighbour. We genuinely seek the good of muslim refugees/immigrants.  Jesus showed grace to the Roman centurion...and on the list goes. One's internal covenant does not preclude them from loving their neighbour. And in the work of TWU, I suspect that their desire for an internal covenant for their students would not necessarily lead to the place you indicate.

 

Anyway, there is so much to think about in light of this issue. And it is good for us to be engaged in it.

 

Thanks again for your response.

Doug, I think you are missing the point somewhat. You see, this tool is in many ways meant to take the workload off of administrators and thier ongoing upkeep of the Directory. That is a huge yearly job as many can attest to. But in the Bridge app, there is only a one time set up of the ine function 'Directory.' for the administrator and then after that every user manages the data they wish others to see. The adminstrator has to do no other thing than approve the changes to ensure it is all appropriate and correct (ie. forgot a digit in the area code; delete an inapprpriate photo etc.)

Also, The Bridge ap pties together all of a local churches web material and keeps it at the fore so people can get to it simply. The rest of the functionality can be gained from a laptop if one uses an apple, but until Microsoft catches up in their capacity to use apps on a desktop or laptop, the Bridge app remains a phone only tool. But considering that an app receives approx 20X more traffic than a static website, its worth it.

Hope this helps.

I'll answer this question as a way to get at both Doug's comments and Lambert's otherwise I will be spending my time in ways that most CRC people would not appreciate for the denominational staff. They actually want me to DO things and not just follow blog posts. But, since this one caught my eye and it is my job to communicate well, I will do so briefly (although I could write the equivalent to a doctoral thesis length on answering these questions. Note that some of my stuff comes out of the Canadian context and so does not necessarily dictate all of the pieces that are in play binationally.

"Did that ministry plan flow from a broad-spectrum conversation with the local congregations? No...it was, like all the other plans, generated by the BOT and the machinery located at 1700 28th St and its counterpart in Burlington Ontario." I am sorry, but this is simply not true and leads to creating a false view of the denomination by anyone who reads this or shares this viewpoint. The process of Strategic planning and journeying into the Ministry Plan included at least these parts in Canada and binationally:

• Cross Canada Classis conversation in 2013 with Ben Vandezande 2013
• ‘Imagining Ministry in the CRC in Canada’ report, 2013
• “Cultivating Binationality” - May 2014
• Strategic Planning listening tour across Canada (and the USA) with local leaders and laypeople, 2014
• Our Journey 2020 – the binational Ministry Plan comes before Synod 
• Survey process and results done with Classis representatives 2015
• National Gathering 2016 conversations with lay and ordained leaders and subsequent survey
• Board of Trustees (Canada Corp) input from 2014-16
• accompanying web content and print comment available to the entire constituency for comment and reflection throughout the process

And in SO MANY of these conversations the leadership prayed, fell on our knees, wept, repented and spiritually discerned and waited for God's answer together with the participants. Case in point, the Canadian National Gathering.

Our 'Doctrine of Discovery" study is another case in point. Which congregation or classis asked for this study? Was there an overture from a local congregation, submitted to classis adopted and then sent to Synod? No. Now in the grand scheme of things, what is not understood in a context like this is the desire of a board to propel the work of God that was already going on within the CRCNA with great success and so representatives of the denominational laity seek to push further into healthy ministry. It is one of the ways a denomination listens and responds to its members. In this case, the outstanding work of the CRCNA amongst/with aboriginal people groups in both the US and Canada that began as grass roots movements came to a point where, culturally speaking, this challenge needed to be addressed in order for the church to have a strong voice at the Urban Aboriginal Ministry Centres or local churches that are part of the CRCNA in local settings. It was informed by many cultural pieces (good Reformed thinking to pay attention there) and then the board says something akin to "indeed - in order to get at the root of things in terms of relationships between aboriginal communities and the church, we need to do this work. With minimal cost and desire for maximum impact the work was done. Very challenging and difficult work ... that will, I hope, ultimately, propel things forward. To imply that it is not attached to the local scene is to discount a board structure made up of local people appointed by classis and to deny the good work going on by CRC people throughout the body of the CRC in Canada and the USA. 

So, now I am afraid that people will just say - There goes the denominational guy blowing the cheerleading trumpet! Let me assure you that we as leaders are sensitive to the fact that there are problems. But what we don't want to do is overexagerate the problem to the point of despair which sometime blogs and commentary like this seem to exhibit.

The current state of affairs has put the local church as the subject of every key sentence in the Ministry Plan. We continue to engage Classis and churches at every turn. I personally commit to spending significant time at every Classis in Canada every year. I am taking before the entire Canadian CRCNA (Canada board, Classis members and local churches) the potential next steps in ministry for all of us to peruse and agree on a way of sharing in this work together. New and intriguing things are developing that allow local churches to opt in or out of parts that are useful (or not). Agencies and Ministries are being retooled in significant ways for both economic reasons and for ministry effectiveness. Ministries are learning and relearning what the demands of local church leaders are. We are embracing the addition of the greatly appreciated Timothy Leadership Training group under the CRCNA umbrella. We are reorganizing the leadership structure to a more representational model known as the Council of Delegates so as to ensure full Classis representation.

How is this NOT wholesale change?

And now for Doug's additional comment of OSJ's content. Indeed, not every issue they raise is going to resonate with every member or church of the CRCNA. I get it. The question though is...are they orchestrating it in such a way that local churches and/or members can "do justice" in a way that reflects their personal faith and local church expression. I think the answer to that is YES. Participate in ways that are fitting to the faith God has formed in you. In that way we can further the mission and not feel like we are choosing to swallow the whole pill that we perceive the CRCNA may be pushing. Does that make sense? It is a way in which it allows for the local church and/or believer to maintain some semblance of appropriate control of their faith action.

I do not intend to speak for all denominational leaders here....and I could wax lengthy about the many other things that are happening but that people seem to be unaware of...so take this as my words, not the words of every leader. However, I do hope it gives you the sense that we are moving in the right direction.

 

I'll tell you one thing. It does teach me the old adage that the job of leaders is to communicate, communicate, communicate. I am not sure in our past we have done that well. Do know that in the binational leadership circles I am in...we are talking about that now too as a regular item on our plate. We need to grow in this area.

Thanks to all who participate in this healthy discussion. Let us TOGETHER work in ways that extend His Kingdom, strengthen His gifts in us and bring people to Christ!

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

if you read my response to Lambert, perhaps you'll pick up the idea that I was not presuming the Ministry Plan to be God's plan except for the fact that it was wrapped in prayer and discernment across two nations, a multitude of CRCNA laity and in many ways.

I think reading what I have read and not knowing all the other parts and then identifying it as "repair" is unfair. I do not know all the distinctions between repair and reform - but if Part 2 reflects the full definition of "reform" then we are doing that too. I would simply need to chart out for you all the parts of change and show you how they link to the various steps. Too much work for this blog.

As it stands, 'reform' is generally understood as a process. I thin it is a process we are in currently. So my assessment is that the CRCNA is doing both REPAIR and REFORM.